>-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] [mailto:meta-ti- >[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rini, Tom >Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 8:01 AM >To: Dmytriyenko, Denys >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [meta-ti] [PATCH 4/4] ti33x, ti43x, omap-a15: switch >KERNEL_IMAGETYPE to zImage by default > >On 09/24/2013 12:39 AM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 03:36:47AM +0000, Cooper Jr., Franklin >wrote: >>> What is the benefit of this switch? >>> >>> Although outdated a lot of posts talking about uImage vs zImage >seems to >>> favor uImage due to additional functionality that it provides. >> >> I guess this is a more generic question addressed to Tom... > >There are two sides to it. On the zImage side, it's what the >kernel >produces normally, without needing other tools, so it's vastly >preferred >by the majority of kernel developers. On the production side, >uImages >provide useful things like a checksums and the ability to detect >overlaps. If we enabled FIT images, we could go so far as to >allow for >cryptographically signed images and configurations (what FIT calls >a >kernel+fdt(+optional ramdisk)). > >For community oriented things like this, zImage is best and for >production, it's up to the designer on what's important and what's >not.
A key point is that either can still be used with new u-boots. Tom, I think you were saying there is a way if the AMSDK wants to for it to fall back to uImage if zImage is not found. > >-- >Tom >_______________________________________________ >meta-ti mailing list >[email protected] >https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-ti _______________________________________________ meta-ti mailing list [email protected] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-ti
