[U-Boot] [RFC] Extend 'bootm' to support Linux kernel generated images

[Simon Glass]

Hi Tom,

On 24 May 2014 06:21, Tom Rini <trini at ti.com> wrote:

> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 03:57:34PM -1000, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > On 21 May 2014 10:46, Tom Rini <trini at ti.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:10:50PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > >> Dear Tom Rini,
> > >>
> > >> In message <20140521195824.GE1752 at bill-the-cat> you wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Something that Rob mentioned to me at ELC, and others have mentioned
> > >> > before is that it would be nice if 'bootm' (which says "boot
> application
> > >> > image stored in memory" in the help, even) would just work with
> zImage
> > >> > or Image or whatever is spit directly out of the kernel.
> > >>
> > >> I don;t think this is a good idea.  "application image" is supposed to
> > >> mean "one of the U-Boot image formats", which means the old legacy
> > >> image format (with the 64 byte header), or FIT images.  To boot a
> > >> zImage file, we have the "bootz" command.
> > >
> > > Yes, it's historically meant something with an essentially (technically
> > > no, practically, yes) U-Boot centric header on it.  But that's not what
> > > the help text says.  And yes we have bootz for zImages and I added
> booti
> > > for Image images.  That resulted in "You mean I have to type different
> > > things for arm and arm64? *sigh*" when explaining this in person.
> > >
> > >> I also think such a patch is pushing into the wrong direction.  We
> > >> should rather try and improve the kernel support for FIT images.
> > >
> > > That's neither here nor there.  You can create and boot FIT images
> > > today, anywhere it's enabled (including arm64).  You can do the same
> > > with legacy images (which also resulted in sighs when I mentioned
> this).
> > > The kernel doesn't want any of this in the kernel tree.  Developers
> want
> > > to have as few steps between "build my kernel" and "now I'm testing my
> > > kernel".  Adding in "create / grab stub FIT file, run mkimage" results
> > > in more unhappy developers.
> >
> > Unless I'm imagining it, some years ago I could type 'make fit_image'
> > or similar for the kernel and get an image ready to boot. Did someone
> > remove that feature from Linux and expect the number of steps needed
> > to build a kernel to stay the same?
>
> It wasn't in mainline, I'm fairly certain.  Or maybe it was an arch/ppc
> thing that got dropped along the way.
>

I took at look and now think I just imagined it, or perhaps had some
patches applied.


>
> > It surprises me the lengths to which people are going to try to
> > shoehorn .dtbs, compression, multiple dtbs, multi-arch etc. into the
> > kenel zImage format. The decompression header is ugly, plus it is
> > slower than doing these things in U-Boot.
>
> Well, with arm64 the kernel is just getting out of the business, hence
> booti (or however we add Image support) and not do the zImage dance.
>

Does this mean a clean Image with no add-ons?

Regards,
Simon