[PATCH 2/3] Kbuild: Implement CONFIG_UIMAGE_KERNEL_NOLOAD

[Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD]

On 13:50 Wed 07 Mar     , Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2012, 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.
> 
> You know what?  I agree with you... on a conceptual level only though.
> 
> In reality, some people are are just too used to it, either for 
> emotional reasons or simply because that's what was there before so they 
> simply perpetuated it without thinking further, or whatever.  REmoving 
> that support would just upset a lot of people.  And frankly we have 
> better things to do than starting a flamewar over this.
My concern is this new feature is available on new version of U-Boot only
and people that does not have it and built the uImage are going to ask the
question. Why bla bla bla....

Where people are supposed to RTFM

I do do not want to have the answer this and manage this.
> 
> So the next best thing is to make this u-Boot stuff well contained in a 
> common place and make sure it doesn't spread incoherently over multiple 
> architecture's directories and makefiles.  This way the u-Boot cruft 
> won't be the ARM maintainer, or the PPC maintainer, or the SPARC 
> maintainer, or any other architecture maintainer's business, but the 
> responsibility of those who do care about it without affecting anyone 
> else.
Ditto here

People does not read the doc they as lazy and I do not want to manage this.

> 
> > And the uImage format here is called the legacy format where now U-Boot
> > support a new format based on DT format.
> > 
> > Will you plan to add it too?
> 
> Why not if someone cares?  At least this will be done only 
> once, centrally, without having to involve architecture maintainers.
So you manage this because I will not answer one e-mail that ask for help
Because for my point of view RTFM or boot the zImage

Best Regards,
J.