On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:46 AM, Jim Huang <jim.hu...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 18 April 2011 14:40, <patrik....@linaro.org> wrote: >> From: Patrik Ryd <patrik....@linaro.org> >> >> In the Linaro set up u-boot will look for uImage (and not for kernel). >> --- >> tasks/kernel.mk | 4 ++-- >> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > hi Patrik, > > Does this imply that we requires u-boot as necessary support for common LEB? > > I am not sure if we should introduce an abstract provider for kernel > image, but I prefer to specify in board configurations since we might > migrate to other 'fastboot' compatible boot loader implementations > such as lk (little kernel) used in Qualcomm patform.
I haven't gotten into lk too much (used it and the legacy fastboot), but it seems that sticking with u-boot may be a better approach since it has wider community support and better cross-platform support. Was there a specific reason to move to lk? > > Thanks, > -jserv > >> diff --git a/tasks/kernel.mk b/tasks/kernel.mk >> index a016d6e..f0ebb93 100644 >> --- a/tasks/kernel.mk >> +++ b/tasks/kernel.mk >> @@ -3,5 +3,5 @@ android_kernel: >> make ARCH=arm CROSS_COMPILE=../$(TARGET_TOOLS_PREFIX) defconfig >> $(KERNEL_CONFIG) &&\ >> make ARCH=arm CROSS_COMPILE=../$(TARGET_TOOLS_PREFIX) uImage >> >> -$(PRODUCT_OUT)/kernel: android_kernel >> - ln -sf ../../../../kernel/arch/arm/boot/uImage $(PRODUCT_OUT)/kernel >> \ No newline at end of file >> +$(PRODUCT_OUT)/uImage: android_kernel >> + ln -sf ../../../../kernel/arch/arm/boot/uImage $(PRODUCT_OUT)/uImage >> \ No newline at end of file >> -- >> 1.7.1 > > _______________________________________________ > linaro-dev mailing list > linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org > http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev > _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
