Hi Vaibhav,
On Tuesday 01 March 2011 07:54 PM, Bedia, Vaibhav wrote:
> Aneesh,
>
> On Monday, February 28, 2011 5:16 PM, V, Aneesh wrote:
>> From: John Rigby<john.ri...@linaro.org>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: John Rigby<john.ri...@linaro.org>
>> ---
>> common/image.c | 1 +
>> include/image.h | 1 +
>> tools/Makefile | 2 +
>> tools/mkimage.c | 2 +
>> tools/mkimage.h | 1 +
>> tools/omapimage.c | 229
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> tools/omapimage.h | 50 ++++++++++++ 7 files changed, 286
>> insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) create mode 100644
>> tools/omapimage.c create mode 100644 tools/omapimage.h
>
> As pointed in the RFC[1] which was posted by John, we should separate out the
> configuration header part as that is optional. We should also consider
> renaming
> it to make it generic. What do you think?
For OMAP4:
1. An 8 byte GP header is enough for booting from external MMC FAT
partition
2. A dummy CH with a dummy CHSETTINGS is essential for booting from
the RAW partition of eMMC or external MMC. This works for FAT
booting too.
3. A full configuration with proper CHSETTINGS and CHRAM will help us
in directly booting from SDRAM avoiding the SPL, but this is not
supported on all revisions of OMAP3/4
IMHO, let's have one image type(what John has created now) for (1) and
(2). It doesn't really harm to have 512 bytes of additional header
attached to your image when it makes it suitable for different types of
booting.
For 3, if that is supported in U-Boot in future, we will need a new
image type, maybe something like omapchimage.
Let me know if you had any special considerations for your SoC.
Best regards,
Aneesh
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
