On Tue, 8 Nov 2011, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Stephen Warren, > > In message <[email protected]> you wrote: > > > > The only place that has full knowledge of the board's memory layout is > > the U-Boot environment for that board, and hence I assert that the > > U-Boot environment should define where to load the kernel (and initrd > > and FDT), and if U-Boot must copy them, where to copy them to. In > > particular, the creator of the uImage can't possibly pick these values > > and expect them to work everywhere. > > But as you said yourself, the (raw) kernel is not relocatable. It > gets loaded and started at pre-defined (at image build time) > addresses. Only the kernel wrapper adds the complexity you are > complaining about. Drop it, then.
Many of us insist on preserving that complexity. From our point of view, it is u-Boot which is too complex and should drop its uImage complexity. But instead of asking you to drop u-Boot's complexity, I'm only asking for u-Boot to let both methods to coexist and work. Given that the zImage "complexity" is not going away because we insist on keeping it, either we find a middle ground such as Stephen's patches, or we advocate for a different bootloader on ARM. Do you never happend to compromize once in a while? Nicolas _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
