Hi Wolfgang, On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 01:02, Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de> wrote: > > Dear Simon, > > In message > <capnjgz0lckldpq85gfyou-z0bjgydo_ky+jex7ktb_wfdpf...@mail.gmail.com> you > wrote: > > > > > > It is also useful for zimage to use a buffer, since it does not actually > > > > put the Linux command line in the bootargs variable. > > > > > > ...which I consider a bug that should be fixed. > > > > OK I was wondering about that. > > > > The messy thing about zimage is that the command line comes from the > > setup.bin in the kernel, and then needs to be modified. So you can't > > just blindly use the 'bootargs' var. Perhaps that is why it wasn't > > done? > > I can't say. I never used zImages, and probably never will. > > > I also feel eventually that bootm could subsume zboot given the > > similarities. Or maybe zboot just dies if people stop using the old > > boot approach? > > I would not shed a tear. > > I cannot understand why people still use this. We should more > actively encourage the use of FIT images in favour of all these old > formats.
Well x86 does support FIT, but oddly it still has the setup.bin business, because the kernel requires it! At least it uses bootm, though. Something for the future... Regards, Simon