[U-Boot] Call for participation in the U-Boot Mini Summit 2014

[Simon Glass]

Hi Tom,

On 5 September 2014 11:53, Tom Rini <trini at ti.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 07:30:35PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
>
> [snip]
>> > It's easier to work with than fitImage.
>>
>> In which way?
>
> In most developer work flows at least zImage then uImage then fitImage
> are the easiest to work with, in that order, for ARM.  For ARM64 Image
> in the next release will probably release uImage as the easiet to work
> with.
>
> fitImage seems useful in a lot of deployment scenarios.  Having to craft
> up a good skeleton device tree in most cases is an annoying to overcome
> barrier for a development workflow.

I wonder if we could easily address that by building in the
functionality to mkimage? For the common case of a kernel, FDT and
ramdisk I don't see why anyone needs to write a .its file. It's just
boilerplate.

Regards,
Simon