On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <[email protected]> wrote: > On 23:20 Tue 18 Oct , Grant Likely wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD >> >> 3) Investigate implementing signed images a la secure boot. Need to >> >> investigate existing secure boot formats and policies so we don't do >> >> something gratuitously different. >> >> >> >> I don't disagree with the FIT image topics, but I'm not including them >> >> in this list of recommendations because they don't have much bearing >> >> on the task of working out ARM server infrastructure. >> > >> > They are usefull to have in one image multple kernel/dtb/initrd >> >> Yes it is for many embedded use cases. However, for the server use >> case the distribution vendors are pretty much needing separate kernel >> and initrd images since pretty much all their infrastructure is set up >> to work in that mode on x86. > So take a look on my proposal of the boot menu with DTB as input
Effectively, there isn't much functional difference between the dtb proposal and using a subset of the grub configuration format. Given the choice, I'd rather use an existing config file format instead of creating a new file format. Also, for config files, plain text is certainly more accessible for reading and editing than the dtb tokenized form. g. _______________________________________________ boot-architecture mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture
