[meta-ti] [PATCH 4/4] ti33x, ti43x, omap-a15: switch KERNEL_IMAGETYPE to zImage by default

[Maupin, Chase]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: meta-ti-bounces at yoctoproject.org [mailto:meta-ti-
>bounces at yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Rini, Tom
>Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 8:01 AM
>To: Dmytriyenko, Denys
>Cc: meta-ti at yoctoproject.org
>Subject: Re: [meta-ti] [PATCH 4/4] ti33x, ti43x, omap-a15: switch
>KERNEL_IMAGETYPE to zImage by default
>
>On 09/24/2013 12:39 AM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 03:36:47AM +0000, Cooper Jr., Franklin
>wrote:
>>> What is the benefit of this switch?
>>>
>>> Although outdated a lot of posts talking about uImage vs zImage
>seems to
>>> favor uImage due to additional functionality that it provides.
>>
>> I guess this is a more generic question addressed to Tom...
>
>There are two sides to it.  On the zImage side, it's what the
>kernel
>produces normally, without needing other tools, so it's vastly
>preferred
>by the majority of kernel developers.  On the production side,
>uImages
>provide useful things like a checksums and the ability to detect
>overlaps.  If we enabled FIT images, we could go so far as to
>allow for
>cryptographically signed images and configurations (what FIT calls
>a
>kernel+fdt(+optional ramdisk)).
>
>For community oriented things like this, zImage is best and for
>production, it's up to the designer on what's important and what's
>not.

A key point is that either can still be used with new u-boots.  Tom, I think you were saying there is a way if the AMSDK wants to for it to fall back to uImage if zImage is not found.

>
>--
>Tom
>_______________________________________________
>meta-ti mailing list
>meta-ti at yoctoproject.org
>https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-ti