On 18 April 2011 21:01, 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).
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?
hi Zach,
In my opinion, if we can follow the protocol of 'fastboot' in _any_ bootloader, we can ensure the consistent approach to deploy firmware both in LEB and Android products.
u-boot is a great boot loader, but it lacks of usable 'fastboot' protocol support. I would regard it as the present working implementation instead of de facto standard in LEB for Android.
Thanks, -jserv