On 17.11.2022 00:01:19, Sean Anderson wrote: > On 11/16/22 05:49, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > > On 31.10.2022 15:51:21, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > > > If the user select the image type "flat_dt" a FIT image will be build. > > > This breaks the legacy use case of putting a Flat Device Tree into a > > > legacy u-boot image. > > > > > > Add a new image type "flat_dt_legacy" to build a legacy u-boot image > > > with a "flat_dt" type. > > > > > > Link: > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221028155205.ojw6tcso2fofg...@pengutronix.de > > > Signed-off-by: Marc Kleine-Budde <m...@pengutronix.de> > > > > Sean, what about this approach compared to adding the new command line > > parameter? > > > > This is good. Maybe we should just name it fdt?
There is already the "flat_dt" in boot/image.c, which is the "new" image
type:
> { IH_TYPE_FLATDT, "flat_dt", "Flat Device Tree", },
[...]
>+ { IH_TYPE_FLATDT_LEGACY, "flat_dt_legacy", "Flat Device Tree
>legacy Image", },
I need a legacy image, where the type is set to IH_TYPE_FLATDT. Maybe
"legacy_flat_dt" or "legacy_fdt" would be an appropriate name, too.
As this string is user facing I think it should have "legacy" in it.
I think "flat_dt" and "fdt" is just too similar and the user can't see
the difference, IMHO.
> > > --- a/boot/image.c
> > > +++ b/boot/image.c
> > > @@ -180,6 +180,7 @@ static const table_entry_t uimage_type[] = {
> > > { IH_TYPE_COPRO, "copro", "Coprocessor Image"},
> > > { IH_TYPE_SUNXI_EGON, "sunxi_egon", "Allwinner eGON Boot
> > > Image" },
> > > { IH_TYPE_SUNXI_TOC0, "sunxi_toc0", "Allwinner TOC0 Boot
> > > Image" },
> > > + { IH_TYPE_FLATDT_LEGACY, "flat_dt_legacy", "Flat Device
> > > Tree legacy Image", },
> > > { -1, "", "",
> > > },
> > > };
regards,
Marc
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde |
Embedded Linux | https://www.pengutronix.de |
Vertretung West/Dortmund | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
