+Lukasz and a few others Hi Brian,
On 31 August 2015 at 16:38, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dell Customer Communication > > > > I have a question with respect to the .itb as a complete bootable/execution > entity. > > > > OUR PAST DESIGNs: > > Our past home grown solutions, much like fit update, is a binary that > contains the various components (meaning kernel, root file system, other > stuff). > > 1) They are copied into hard coded flash locations, bootcmd then does > mmc read of kernel, then bootm, kernel goes to hard coded location to get > the rootfs, etc. > > 2) We also have a system that copy’s the kernel and rootfs as files > into a ext4 file system, bootcmd does ext4load of kernel, then bootm, > kernel knows of file /rootfs, etc. > > > > > > FULL BENEFIT OF .itb > > It would seem that the benefit of having everything in the .itb (Kernel, > rootfs, dtb, etc). > > It can be copied as a single blob, so fwupdate is really just a single copy > to your flash device. > Yes that's right. > > > > > QUESTIONs: > > Is the full intent of the .itb is to leave it all together, kernel, dtb, > rootfs, other stuff? > > Pull the itb into memory, boot the kernel, it knows how to find the rootfs, > etc. > > OR > > Is the .itb a kernel/dtb , then via bootargs we tell the kernel where > rootfs is? > > Meaning it is not part of the .itb. The second option. You can put a ramdisk in the .itb (FIT) but typically that is just used to get the boot started, and you then use a root disk on another device, with bootargs telling the kernel where to find it. > > > > What the open source industry doing? > > > > > > > > If I am totally off base please feel free to correct me. > > > > Thank you for your time. > > Brian Brelsford > Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
