Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:41:01 -0600
From: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, paulus@samba.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/3] Merge mkimage tool for building uImages
Message-ID: <20071220134101.679d90cd@zod.rchland.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <476AB640.4040005@zytor.com>
References: <20071220101643.48b427ef@zod.rchland.ibm.com>
	<20071220101739.45b28d26@zod.rchland.ibm.com>
	<476AB640.4040005@zytor.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1175
Lines: 28

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:36:48 -0800
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:

> Josh Boyer wrote:
> > Several platforms require the mkimage tool to generate a uImage file
> > that is used with U-Boot.  This brings the mkimage tool in-kernel to
> > enable building those platforms without having mkimage internally
> > provided.
> > 
> > This is currently based off of the version found in U-Boot 1.3.1.
> > 
> 
> Can we rename it either "ubootimage" or "mkuboot" or something else that 
> tells the user what kind of image it is?  (It is, in particular, not 
> bzImage, which is probably the first thing that someone who sees "image" 
> in a arch-generic part of the Linux kernel tree will think.)

We can, yes.  I have no particular objection to that and I've often
found mkimage to be too generic of a name myself.  For the initial
round of patches, I just wanted to keep things as similar to what is
in U-Boot as possible.

josh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/