Dear Stephen, In message <20111108194433.7c9a013be...@gemini.denx.de> I wrote: > > > Are you willing to entertain extending bootm to recognize a third image > > format if this makes the patches less invasive, and/or leads to more > > maintainable code? > > I have to admit that I don't like the idea, but I will not argue over > hard facts. But please keep in mind that bootz support shall be a > configuration option, that can be selected or omittet at build time. > My feeling is that this would require quite a number of new #ifdef's > if you try to add it into the existing code.
Thinking about this again I wonder if this is really what is needed. Why do we need a third image format? What would happen if we just create a new image type IH_TYPE_ZIMAGE? Then you can use plain "bootm", and probably most of the existing code. A few tests may need to be extended by some "|| (type == IH_TYPE_ZIMAGE)", and in the end you can just skip the parts that deal with loading and starting. For the sake of consistency, such images should be built with IH_COMP_NONE, then. What do you think? Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de "There are three principal ways to lose money: wine, women, and en- gineers. While the first two are more pleasant, the third is by far the more certain." -- Baron Rothschild, ca. 1800 _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot