From: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:17:40 +0100
Subject: [U-Boot-Users] RFC: New U-boot image format
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:04:09 +0100."
	<476BD5E9.3030601@semihalf.com>
Message-ID: <20071221151740.2317A248AC@gemini.denx.de>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

In message <476BD5E9.3030601@semihalf.com> you wrote:
>
> > This is no argument for not  creating  some  more  centralized  image
> > processing code, or is it?
> 
> No, it's not. But I have doubts whether bootm is a good place for it.
> Maybe we should rather go for new generic command, something like
> 'imrun' or similar. And maybe even, move standalone application

It certainly makes sense to factor out this code, but I'm not sure yet
if a separate command will be needed.

> execution from bootm to a dedicated hook that'll be available from
> 'imrun'. This way, bootm would become strict OS booting command,

But "bootm" already *is* a strict OS booting command.

I'm not sure what  youre  reference  to  standalone  applications  is
supposed  to  mean  in  this contexzt - but SA apps are NOT booted by
bootm, they get started using the "go" command.

> potentially also available from 'imrun' via a hook.

...or vice versa.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
But the only way of discovering the limits  of  the  possible  is  to
venture a little way past them into the impossible.
                         - _Profiles of the Future_ (1962; rev. 1973)
                  ``Hazards of Prophecy: The Failure of Imagination''