[U-Boot] [PATCH 0/6] add zip command support for uboot

[Tom Rini]

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 04:04:29PM +0800, Lei Wen wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 11:53 PM,  <adrian.wenl at gmail.com> wrote:
> > From: Lei Wen <leiwen at marvell.com>
> >
> > This patch set add zip command support for uboot.
> > The first two patches import deflate and trees functions from zlib 1.2.5
> > without any change. While the third patch did the necessary change to
> > make the import file could be built passed in uboot environment.
> >
> > The fourth patch make us could zip the memory from 0 in the address space.
> >
> > The latter fifth and sixth patch does the adding gzip lib function exporting
> > and zip command support.
> >
> > Patch set test with zip&unzip and compared with original memory content.
> >
> >
> > Lei Wen (6):
> > ?lib: zlib: import deflate source file from 1.2.5
> > ?lib: zlib: import trees file from 1.2.5
> > ?lib: zlib: include deflate into zlib build
> > ?lib: zlib: remove the limitation for cannot using 0 as start
> > ?lib: add gzip lib function callback
> > ?common: add zip command support
> >
> > ?common/Makefile ? ? ? | ? ?1 +
> > ?common/cmd_zip.c ? ? ?| ? 60 ++
> > ?include/common.h ? ? ?| ? ?7 +
> > ?include/u-boot/zlib.h | ? 40 +-
> > ?lib/Makefile ? ? ? ? ?| ? ?1 +
> > ?lib/gzip.c ? ? ? ? ? ?| ?143 ++++
> > ?lib/zlib/deflate.c ? ?| 1831 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > ?lib/zlib/deflate.h ? ?| ?342 +++++++++
> > ?lib/zlib/trees.c ? ? ?| 1244 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > ?lib/zlib/trees.h ? ? ?| ?128 ++++
> > ?lib/zlib/zlib.c ? ? ? | ? ?8 +
> > ?lib/zlib/zutil.h ? ? ?| ? ?4 +
> > ?12 files changed, 3804 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > ?create mode 100644 common/cmd_zip.c
> > ?create mode 100644 lib/gzip.c
> > ?create mode 100644 lib/zlib/deflate.c
> > ?create mode 100644 lib/zlib/deflate.h
> > ?create mode 100644 lib/zlib/trees.c
> > ?create mode 100644 lib/zlib/trees.h
> 
> Any comments to this series?

What's the usecase for this code?  Did the U-Boot change in size for
targets that didn't opt for the new command?

-- 
Tom