[PATCH 2/3] Kbuild: Implement CONFIG_UIMAGE_KERNEL_NOLOAD
swarren at wwwdotorg.org
Wed Mar 7 15:27:50 EST 2012
On 03/07/2012 11:36 AM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> On 11:40 Wed 07 Mar , Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 03/07/2012 11:08 AM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
>>> On 17:30 Tue 06 Mar , Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>> This allows the user to use U-Boot's mkimage's -T kernel_noload option
>>>> if their arch Kconfig allows it, and they desire.
>>>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren at wwwdotorg.org>
>>>> The next patch enables this new CONFIG_ALLOW_ option for ARM. I assume
>>>> that some other architectures will also be able to enable it, but I'm
>>>> not familiar enough with any to know which.
>>> I'm going to repeat. I don't think any impromevent here.
>>> with no specific kernel load address the uImage for is useless/
>> No, the whole point of this type of kernel image is that it doesn't need
>> a specific load address; the kernel zImage can run from anywhere in RAM
>> (provided AUTO_ZRELADDR is enabled, subject to some slight
>> restrictions), and hence the uImage doesn't need to be loaded to or
>> moved to any particular location.
>> The scripts that U-Boot runs determine where the image gets loaded into
> so instead of spending time on the uImage add simply the support the zImage to
> U-Boot as this AUTO_ZRELADDR have 0 advantage compare to the zImage
Thinking more about this, I guess the reliance on AUTO_ZRELADDR is wrong
here; Russell, Nico, is the ARM decompressor fully position-independent
irrespective of the AUTO_ZRELADDR setting. That setting just determines
where the decompressor writes its output, not what address the
decompressor can run at, right? So, this KERNEL_NOLOAD feature could be
enabled in all cases on ARM, not only when AUTO_ZRELADDR is enabled.
As such to address Jean-Christophe's most recent comment above, this
patch isn't about adding support for AUTO_ZRELADDR, but for U-Boot's
kernel_noload feature, so comparisons should be drawn between
kernel_noload uImages and zImage, not between AUTO_ZRELADDR and zImage.
In other words:
We already have and need ZRELADDR no matter what, for reasons unrelated
Patch 1 in this series is just consolidating duplicate definitions, and
doesn't introduce any new features, so I think hope you think it's a
good thing no matter what anyone thinks about U-Boot/uImage.
I assume you're only arguing about patches 2 and 3?
More information about the linux-arm-kernel