From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de ([2001:6f8:1178:4:290:27ff:fe1d:cc33]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1VOUXr-0002gc-9V for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 15:28:59 +0000 Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 17:28:36 +0200 From: Sascha Hauer Message-ID: <20130924152836.GF30088@pengutronix.de> References: <1379775256-29471-1-git-send-email-plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> <1379775256-29471-2-git-send-email-plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> <20130924073244.GA30088@pengutronix.de> <20130924092450.GJ31585@ns203013.ovh.net> <20130924093340.GD30088@pengutronix.de> <20130924124442.GL31585@ns203013.ovh.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130924124442.GL31585@ns203013.ovh.net> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 v2] fs: add BPKFS support To: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org, Fargier Sylvain On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 02:44:42PM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > On 11:33 Tue 24 Sep , Sascha Hauer wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 11:24:50AM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > > On 09:32 Tue 24 Sep , Sascha Hauer wrote: > > > > Some typos inside > > > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 04:54:16PM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > > > > Simple update file format developped for Somfy, tools and library are > > > > > > > > s/developped/developed/ > > > > > > > > > +/* > > > > > + * Copyright (c) 2013 Jean-Chritstophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD > > > > > > > > s/Jean-Chritstophe/Jean-Christophe/ > > > > > > a tyPo in my own name :( > > > > > > > > Otherwise this looks good. > > > > > > for some times I was thinking to do the same on uimage > > > > > > so we do not need to extract struff from it > > > > I have a patch that drops multifile uImage support. It really makes the > > bootm code more readable. > > NO I does use it and in production board > > we must have multifile uImage support That was in response to "I was thinking to do the same on uimage" which I interpreted in the way that you thought about implementing uimage support as filesystem which would allow us to remove the multifile support from bootm without loosing the feature of handling multifile images. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox