[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFC: android-style boot image support for flash-kernel



On Sunday, 30 April 2023 23:28:23 CEST Roger Shimizu wrote:
> Currently, the dev-board is supported by Linaro [2][3], and most
> kernel device-tree, patches and firmware are already upstreamed.
> I confirmed that with simple snippet below, generated boot.img can be
> used to boot the RB3 / DB845c dev-board with linaro's rootfs [3].
> PS. mkbootimg [4] is a tool from android's package to generate
> boot.img image to boot the dev-board.
> 
> My question is:
> - Currently flash-kernel is mainly u-boot based, is it proper to add
> "mkbootimg" based devices?

In https://lists.debian.org/debian-arm/2023/02/msg00023.html I said:
===================================================
If you have a working bootloader which (successfully) starts 'some' kernel and 
combine that with a userland created by f.e. debootstrap and you have a 
working Debian-like system.

The problem with most BSPs is this: The device/chipset vendor proved with it 
that the device/SBC works and can run Linux. And then they throw it over the 
wall and 'say' "have fun with it" (our job is done)."
===================================================

Sound to me like yet another BSP. 
In that same post I also said:
===================================================
I'm going to assume that "supported *in* Debian" (emphasis mine) means whether 
it's supported by all-and-only Debian packages.

For that you need 2 things:
1) device/SBC is supported by *upstream* u-boot
2) device/SBC is supported by the *upstream* kernel
===================================================
(Vagrant Cascadian replied to that post and mentioned UEFI as another 'valid' 
boot loader)

Booting ARM based devices is already complicated enough, so *I* would be very 
much in favor of NOT adding support for yet another boot method, which would 
also disincentivize board makers (and/or their community) from properly and 
fully upstreaming things, including u-boot/UEFI.

Not sure if my opinion is relevant as I also don't know much about 
flash-kernel, but these are my 0.02

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Reply to: