-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Somebody in the thread at some point said: | * Andy Green <[email protected]> [090302 15:21]: |> Somebody in the thread at some point said: |> | Dear Andy, |> | |> | Andy Green wrote (ao): |> |> Otherwise, they will simply propose people keep using U-Boot and not Qi |> |> as their "fix". To the extent we pull some extra current until GSM is |> |> turned on, Qi is then compatible with old and new kernels. So it's the |> |> best path right now AFAICT. |> | |> | Would it be too inconvenient to have a 'correct' Qi and a |> | 'backwards compatible' Qi? | |> It's not inconvenient if it can choose what to do at runtime, based on a |> sign from the U-Boot header that the kernel it's going to run can cope |> with the right thing. | what does this mean when booting from SD? No u-boot header involved | there, no?
There is the same U-Boot header on our kernels no matter where you're booting it from. And it is a fixed-length (64 byte) header. - -Andy -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkmr8lIACgkQOjLpvpq7dMpqrwCdEk95lFrYg5FDrup1+I1Noq2v piwAnRla4TP2aL3K8+/JT5otV66m+ejO =r47d -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
