On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 16:04:45 +0000 Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 05:48:02AM -0600, Josh Boyer wrote: > > Rework the architecture specific Makefiles to use the in-kernel version of > > the mkubootimg tool. > > > > Signed-off-by: Josh Boyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > From the point of view of no overall change: Ack. Ok, thanks. As it really is no change from the current status quo, I'll go with this until something happens from the discussion below. > From the point of view of whether we should have this in the kernel: > probably not. > > See > http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/thread/20071203.131631.85e7a1a5.en.html#20071203.131631.85e7a1a5 > > for a recent discussion on the ins and outs, multiple formats, options > and so forth passed to mk(u)image. It looks like we're heading for 5 or > 6 different kernel image formats for the ARM architecture. ;( Hm, that's a bit unfortunate indeed. I'm not very familiar with ARM, but is there a "majority" image format that is used? If so, we could have the kernel build system generate that by default for uImages. If not, perhaps it would be better to remove the uImage stuff completely for ARM as you hinted at in that thread. The other architectures don't seem to suffer from as many differences and are probably OK. josh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
