> On 11/10/2011 10:01 AM, Marek Vasut wrote: > >> On 11/10/2011 02:58 AM, Marek Vasut wrote: > >>>> [Description of IH_TYPE_KERNEL_ANYLOAD] > >>> > >>> just a silly question, but didn't we agree on cmd_bootz? Or is this > >>> unrelated ? > >> > >> bootz did seem to be agreed upon initially, but Wolfgang's most recent > >> response suggested that a new IH_TYPE would be acceptable, and it's a > >> lot less code to implement. At a later point, bootz could still be > >> implemented if desired. > > > > Well DAMN. I think I'll probably implement bootz, because it seems > > superior solution which I DID NEED for one of my devices for a while now > > (if noone is working on it already). I can't say what ETA will be on > > that, maybe next week, maybe two weeks. > > Out of curiosity, why doesn't this bootm feature work for you? > Admittedly you still need to wrap the zImage inside a uImage, but I > don't think that's insurmountable? Aside from that, doesn't it work > exactly like a bootz command would?
Do you still have those +12bytes (sizeof(uImage header)) offset there? I don't like it. Also, I think using zImage might be plain easier. M _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
