On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Alexander Sack asac@linaro.org wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Zach Pfeffer pfefferz@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:46 AM, Jim Huang jim.huang@linaro.org wrote:
On 18 April 2011 14:40, patrik.ryd@linaro.org wrote:
From: Patrik Ryd patrik.ryd@linaro.org
In the Linaro set up u-boot will look for uImage (and not for kernel).
tasks/kernel.mk | 4 ++-- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
hi Patrik,
Does this imply that we requires u-boot as necessary support for common LEB?
I am not sure if we should introduce an abstract provider for kernel image, but I prefer to specify in board configurations since we might migrate to other 'fastboot' compatible boot loader implementations such as lk (little kernel) used in Qualcomm patform.
I haven't gotten into lk too much (used it and the legacy fastboot), but it seems that sticking with u-boot may be a better approach since it has wider community support and better cross-platform support. Was there a specific reason to move to lk?
I am happy to have a discussion about our default android bootloader at LDS in budapest.
IIRC, one blueprint that John Rigby wanted to own is about adding fastboot support to u-boot ... maybe thats a good compromise instead of lk?
That would be very nice. There's actually some documentation in u-boot about fastboot (a README). I wonder if there's some support already?
--
- Alexander