On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Russell King - ARM Linux Admin wrote:
> Zach Welch writes:
> > Could you please give a brief explanation as to why zImage is preferred over
> > Image in the current SA-1100 build? Our bootloader uses a built-in
> > compression scheme that I need to use, and the idea of compressing the
> > zImage is not appealing. My understanding is that the two images should be
> > the same (except zImage has to extract the piggyback kernel).
>
> Oh dear. I've been around this one with Rebel.com (when they were Corel
> Computer). They were basically decompresing and elf-loading the top-level
> vmlinux file.
>
> What is the reason for having your own compression scheme built into your
> boot loader?
Some bootloaders are designed to load other ... OSes which might not have
autodecompression capabilities.
> It doesn't make sense when the kernel one is tried, tested
> and proved to work.
Well... As long as zImage is still used, the CRC will stool broken
bootloader decompression schemes...
Nicolas
unsubscribe: body of `unsubscribe linux-arm' to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
++ Please use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for ++
++ kernel-related discussions. ++
