On Mon, 5 Dec 2016, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 10:46:38AM +0100, Lucas Stach wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, den 01.12.2016, 19:55 +0100 schrieb Alexander Kurz:
> > > Booting via bootm offers several methods to load oftree data. When no
> > > dedicated oftree image is provided,
On Fri, 2 Dec 2016, Lucas Stach wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 01.12.2016, 19:55 +0100 schrieb Alexander Kurz:
> > Booting via bootm offers several methods to load oftree data. When no
> > dedicated oftree image is provided, barebox checks for the presence of
> > its own internal oftree, assuming i
On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 10:46:38AM +0100, Lucas Stach wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 01.12.2016, 19:55 +0100 schrieb Alexander Kurz:
> > Booting via bootm offers several methods to load oftree data. When no
> > dedicated oftree image is provided, barebox checks for the presence of
> > its own internal
Am Donnerstag, den 01.12.2016, 19:55 +0100 schrieb Alexander Kurz:
> Booting via bootm offers several methods to load oftree data. When no
> dedicated oftree image is provided, barebox checks for the presence of
> its own internal oftree, assuming it as a good choice for boot.
>
> This fallback me
Booting via bootm offers several methods to load oftree data. When no
dedicated oftree image is provided, barebox checks for the presence of
its own internal oftree, assuming it as a good choice for boot.
This fallback method breaks the usecase when a modern OF-based barebox
is used to boot a lega
