* Andy Green <[email protected]> [090302 15:55]: > 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. ahh, ok. That would be fine then :-) > -Andy Klaus 'mrmoku' Kurzmann
