On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Peter Maydell
wrote:
> On 22 June 2012 14:27, Peter Crosthwaite
> wrote:
>> Ping!
>>
>> Any thoughts Peter?
>
> Still sounds too specific to your odd use case and hardware to me.
>
> I'd accept some reasonable way of saying "this ELF file is a Linux kernel",
> bu
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Peter Maydell
wrote:
> On 22 June 2012 14:27, Peter Crosthwaite
> wrote:
>> Ping!
>>
>> Any thoughts Peter?
>
> Still sounds too specific to your odd use case and hardware to me.
>
> I'd accept some reasonable way of saying "this ELF file is a Linux kernel",
> bu
On 22 June 2012 14:27, Peter Crosthwaite
wrote:
> Ping!
>
> Any thoughts Peter?
Still sounds too specific to your odd use case and hardware to me.
I'd accept some reasonable way of saying "this ELF file is a Linux kernel",
but magically doing it if you also said -dtb isn't it. I also care about
Ping!
Any thoughts Peter?
Regards,
Peter
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Peter Crosthwaite
wrote:
> It matches my flow in the real hardware.
>
> Heres the scenario where we need this (FYI applies to both microblaze and
> arm):
>
> User creates a Linux elf that includes a built in dtb. Slave
It matches my flow in the real hardware.
Heres the scenario where we need this (FYI applies to both microblaze and arm):
User creates a Linux elf that includes a built in dtb. Slave mode
bootloader boots the real hardware with the elf (my actual real JTAG
bootloader work with elfs).
However QEMU
On 18 June 2012 02:35, Peter A. G. Crosthwaite
wrote:
> If the user boots with a -dtb assume the Linux boot flow, even when handling
> an
> elf.
We don't do this for -initrd, why should we do it for -dtb ?
-- PMM
If the user boots with a -dtb assume the Linux boot flow, even when handling an
elf.
Signed-off-by: Peter A. G. Crosthwaite
---
hw/arm_boot.c |5 +
1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/hw/arm_boot.c b/hw/arm_boot.c
index 7447f5c..f0fa23c 100644
--- a/hw/arm_boot
