On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Tom Rini <tom.r...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Bruce Ashfield > <bruce.ashfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > [snip] >> If no one minds the tiny bit of extra complexity, this was the approach that >> I >> was thinking about when reading this thread. >> >> I can report for fact, that the uImages that were being generated by >> the existing >> rules were binary blobs of silent boot death on the powerpc boards that I was >> using during initial development. The in tree images worked perfectly. >> >> For everything I've done in the past, I've always used in tree uImages >> or patched the >> kernel tree itself to generated images that worked for the board in question. >> >> The difference in approach could likely be chalked up to a guy just >> trying to get a >> kernel to boot, and someone working more closely with the bootloader -> >> kernel >> handoff. >> >> I think a variable, or some other switch, to support the two workflows >> is a reasonable >> compromise. > > Part of the history[1], and I was surprised at the time too, was that > for ARM at least, rmk had said that you should not use the uImages > generated by the kernel. So the question is, has this changed? Is > this an ARM-only thing?'
I've been booting uImages generated by the kernel on ARM boards since nearly 2008. So it may be more of a per-board thing now .. or something else entirely. Cheers, Bruce > > [1]: > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/pipermail/openembedded-devel/2008-November/007096.html > > -- > Tom > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core -- "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee at its end" _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core