Hi Tom, On 5 September 2014 11:53, Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 07:30:35PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > > [snip] >> > It's easier to work with than fitImage. >> >> In which way? > > In most developer work flows at least zImage then uImage then fitImage > are the easiest to work with, in that order, for ARM. For ARM64 Image > in the next release will probably release uImage as the easiet to work > with. > > fitImage seems useful in a lot of deployment scenarios. Having to craft > up a good skeleton device tree in most cases is an annoying to overcome > barrier for a development workflow.
I wonder if we could easily address that by building in the functionality to mkimage? For the common case of a kernel, FDT and ramdisk I don't see why anyone needs to write a .its file. It's just boilerplate. Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
