Hi Rasmus,
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 08:41, Rasmus Villemoes
wrote:
>
> On 27/01/2022 16.06, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Rasmus,
> >
> > On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 at 07:55, Rasmus Villemoes
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> (1) When one wants to get rid of CONFIG_LEGACY_IMAGE_FORMAT, one also
> >> has to wrap any boot
On 27/01/2022 16.06, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Rasmus,
>
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 at 07:55, Rasmus Villemoes
> wrote:
>>
>> (1) When one wants to get rid of CONFIG_LEGACY_IMAGE_FORMAT, one also
>> has to wrap any boot script in a FIT rather than a uImage. While it's
>> not directly documented anywhere
Hi Rasmus,
On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 at 07:55, Rasmus Villemoes
wrote:
>
> (1) When one wants to get rid of CONFIG_LEGACY_IMAGE_FORMAT, one also
> has to wrap any boot script in a FIT rather than a uImage. While it's
> not directly documented anywhere how to do that, it seems that a minimal
> .its for
On 11/21/2021 6:55 AM, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> (2) Assuming for the moment that I would be happy with just using
> required=image, am I right in that not only does that mean that the
> combination of kernel/fdt/initramfs is not verified, merely the
> individual parts, but more importantly (a mix'
(1) When one wants to get rid of CONFIG_LEGACY_IMAGE_FORMAT, one also
has to wrap any boot script in a FIT rather than a uImage. While it's
not directly documented anywhere how to do that, it seems that a minimal
.its for achieving it is
/dts-v1/;
/ {
description = "U-Boot script(s)";
5 matches
Mail list logo