[PATCH 1/4] fs/squashfs: new filesystem

[Thomas Petazzoni]

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 10:54:24 +0200
Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes at prevas.dk> wrote:

> > It's very much like the FAT filesystem case: if you have U-Boot proper
> > and your Linux kernel image in a FAT filesystem,   
> 
> No, this is very much _not_ like the above. In this paragraph, you
> combine "U-Boot proper and your Linux kernel", imposing an implicit
> assumption that they are stored in the same way. Sure, _if_ both these
> items are stored in squashfs images (possibly the same, possibly
> distinct), then the thing that loads the respective images obviously
> needs squashfs (or FAT, or whatnot) support.
> 
> My point is that it's possible that, say, U-Boot proper is stored in a
> FAT file system, and the kernel is stored in a UBI volume. So SPL needs
> FAT support. Why should I be forced to compile FAT support into U-Boot
> proper if U-Boot proper never needs to access a FAT filesystem? And the
> same for squashfs. Or any of the drivers or DM_ frameworks that do that
> "depends on" or "select".

Ah, I absolutely agree that it should be possible to have Squashfs in
both SPL and U-Boot proper, or only in SPL or only in U-Boot proper.

It was not clear in your initial e-mail that this was the issue you
were pointing.

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com