On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 7:48 PM, Graeme Russ <graeme.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Gabe, > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Gabe Black <gabebl...@chromium.org> > wrote: > > These two patches add support for the 32 bit Linux boot protocol to the > > zboot command. > > Going by our previous offline correspondence, I assume this approach still > uses the bzImage's decompression stub? > > Also, as I discussion offline previously, I'm going through the boot_params > with a fine-tooth comb to get a complete picture of what the Linux kernel > actually requires to be filled out in the boot_params structure - I expect > this will result in a 'built_boot_params()' function which is called by > zboot and bootm - possibly with some weak stubs to helper functions > > Regards, > > Graeme > Yes, this supports the 32 bit protocol which includes the decompression stub. I don't think a build_boot_params function which actually builds the bootstub would work for a number of reasons. First, that's not how the boot protocol works. The kernel provides information there that u-boot needs to read, and u-boot shouldn't just make it up. An example of this is what boot protocol is expected. Second, you might find all the things a particular version of the kernel wants right now, but that could easy change at any time and break booting. Third, the boot_params structure isn't compressed (because otherwise the bootloader couldn't fill it out) and building our own wouldn't serve any purpose. If you mean consolidating the existing boot_params code so that both zboot and bootm can use it, that seems reasonable. I'd point out, though, that filling out the table takes a trivial amount of time, so trying to cut corners and not fill it out completely would not only be dangerous, it would very likely not be worth the effort. Gabe
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
