[U-Boot-Users] RFC:new multi image format

Kumar Gala galak at kernel.crashing.org
Thu Mar 22 02:38:02 CET 2007

On Mar 13, 2007, at 3:25 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:

> Dear Kumar,
> in message <D87DF9BC-1392-42F1-8642- 
> D3D9D80D646E at kernel.crashing.org> you wrote:
>> The current multi image format doesn't really provide any information
>> about what the images contained inside the multi image are.
>> I'm suggesting we add a new ih_type, IH_TYPE_MULTI_V2 in which we
>> have an expanded header for each 'sub image' to describe more details
>> about it.
> I'd like to take a more generic approach, as we see other areas where
> additional header information is needed.
>> Are other fields useful or should we just duplicate the image_header
>> completely?
> Yes. Please see my posting 'RFC: extended image formats' of
> 27 Feb 2007:
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/26641
> I think both topics are similar enough. Like in your suggestion, my
> current thinking is about using a new image type which alows us to
> include a second image header.
> Then hesitation starts - shall we really use  a  simple  binary  data
> structure  again  which  will sooner or later crerate all the hassles
> the bd_info structure gave us in the Linux kernel, or is it enough to
> add a version field and allow for growing this structure by appending
> new fields at the end, or should we go for something  like  ATAGs  or
> bi_records or ...

I haven't looked at ATAGs but from what I hear its similar to  
bi_records.  Are there any tools we could leverage code from with ATAGs?

I think something like that would be the most flexible w/o too much  

- k

More information about the U-Boot mailing list