On Friday 21 January 2011 20:02:47 Grant Likely wrote:
> > Right, current thoughts after some IRC discussion are:
> >
> > * busybox
> > * no package manager
> > * max size of 30mb (without kernel)
> > * some further removal of packages
> >
> > I think with this in place you will get a ~30mb com
U-Boot got faster in the last cycle (v2010.12). Cache is now enabled
on arm and multiblock reads were added to the mmc driver.
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 21 January 2011 18:42:55 David Rusling wrote:
>> Yes, but isn't initrd slow to copy from the boot medi
On Friday 21 January 2011 18:42:55 David Rusling wrote:
> Yes, but isn't initrd slow to copy from the boot media
> (caches off, simple byte by byte copy)?
I hadn't considered this, but I guess this also depends a
lot on the boot loader that is being used. Does uboot always
run with caches disabled
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Jamie Bennett wrote:
> On 21 Jan 2011, at 15:42, Loïc Minier wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011, Jamie Bennett wrote:
>>> Currently we are reassessing whether or not the Headless image meets
>>> the requirements for a small, fast, useable image for board
>>> verifica
Yes, but isn't initrd slow to copy from the boot media (caches off, simple byte
by byte copy)?
Dave
On 21 Jan 2011, at 16:27, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 21 January 2011 16:50:37 Jamie Bennett wrote:
>>> Could we do with an initrd instead of an image? I mean, busybox +
>>> small set of t
On Friday 21 January 2011 16:50:37 Jamie Bennett wrote:
> > Could we do with an initrd instead of an image? I mean, busybox +
> > small set of tools is probably enough for validation, and will be quite
> > small.
> >
> > There is inherent bloat as soon as we add a package manager in the mix
>
>
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011, Jamie Bennett wrote:
>> Currently we are reassessing whether or not the Headless image meets
>> the requirements for a small, fast, useable image for board
>> verification. Just for information the current stats as of 2011
On 21 Jan 2011, at 15:42, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011, Jamie Bennett wrote:
>> Currently we are reassessing whether or not the Headless image meets
>> the requirements for a small, fast, useable image for board
>> verification. Just for information the current stats as of 2011-01-21
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011, Jamie Bennett wrote:
> Currently we are reassessing whether or not the Headless image meets
> the requirements for a small, fast, useable image for board
> verification. Just for information the current stats as of 2011-01-21
> are:
>
> * Download Size: 64M
> * Download siz
the above sizes are with or without kernel?
Without.
Anyone knows how
compression of cramfs compares to tar.gz? e.g. can we compare those
sizes directly to our gzipped tarballs?
I did a quick exercise of uncramfs-ing and tar-gz-ipping the v7
versions back. Results:
49164288 filesystem_bin
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Pawel Moll wrote:
>> * Download Size: 64M
>> * Download size with OMAP3 hwpack: 100M
>> The current thoughts are to cut this image down as much as possible
>> whilst still retaining the ability to boot to a command prompt. The
>> new image would be a 'nano' image
* Download Size: 64M
* Download size with OMAP3 hwpack: 100M
The current thoughts are to cut this image down as much as possible
whilst still retaining the ability to boot to a command prompt. The
new image would be a 'nano' image and would be useful for verifying
that the hardware boots.
Yes,
Back in November I had prototyped something like this and even called
it nano. Here's the post I made to the list about it and using then
current hwpack + then current headless how I was able to chop things
down considerably.
http://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/linaro-dev/2010-November/001439.html
13 matches
Mail list logo
