Bootsplash.raw: Is this file still needed or looked for?

[Nate!]

I was looking at the Install instructions on the Gigabeat Port page.  Is the bootsplah.raw file still saught for by the bootloader in the root of the player?  Should someone wanting to change the bootsplash, put this file in the root of the /.rockbox dir? -Thanks.

[Mad Cow]

Putting it in the .rockbox dir would be useful. It can't be that hard to change the path, I might even try it with my incredibly limited coding skills.

[Llorean]

The plan is to remove the bootsplash.raw feature, since it's not the way any other bootloaders work, and the whole point of the bootloader is to do the minimum amount necessary to prepare for booting Rockbox.

Most of the other bootloaders have been streamlined so they don't display anything at all, now.

[Mad Cow]

How much faster will it load if it's the bare minimum? (no bootsplash, text, etc.)

I changed it so that it looks for bootsplash.raw in /.rockbox. Download Here
I almost bricked my gigabeat because I thought that you had to run SCRAMBLE on it. Didn't know it already did that in the "make" process.

[Llorean]

You wouldn't have bricked it, really, you'd just have had to use the recovery procedure. Not too difficult if you can manage a screwdriver.

But it could cut a second or two off boot time, nobody's tested yet. But it's not like the functionality would be gone. The hardcoded boot image in rockbox.gigabeat would likely be replaced with a simple .bmp load, meaning you don't need to convert your image.

[Mad Cow]

You wouldn't have bricked it, really, you'd just have had to use the recovery procedure. Not too difficult if you can manage a screwdriver.

But it could cut a second or two off boot time, nobody's tested yet. But it's not like the functionality would be gone. The hardcoded boot image in rockbox.gigabeat would likely be replaced with a simple .bmp load, meaning you don't need to convert your image.

That's what I had to do, but I did get kinda scared when it stopped loading at 50%, then I remembered the recovery procedure. It was actually a lot easier than I thought, the gigabeat comes apart so well it's as if it was designed to be taken apart alot.

Wouldn't decoding the bmp take up more CPU time than simply loading a raw file?

[Llorean]

A BMP isn't actually encoded, really. It's raw bitmap data, hence the name bitmap. The only extra CPU time would be spent converting it to the native framebuffer format. Since there's already code in the core to do that (it converts several bitmaps every boot currently: Those in the WPS) adding one more bitmap to the list is not going to make a significant difference, and if someone prefers a faster boot they just don't use a theme with a custom boot screen.

[Mad Cow]

A BMP isn't actually encoded, really. It's raw bitmap data, hence the name bitmap. The only extra CPU time would be spent converting it to the native framebuffer format. Since there's already code in the core to do that (it converts several bitmaps every boot currently: Those in the WPS) adding one more bitmap to the list is not going to make a significant difference, and if someone prefers a faster boot they just don't use a theme with a custom boot screen.

Then what's the point of the RAW format then? What are the differences between it and a bitmap?

[Nate!]

Stab in the dark: Aren't RAW files uncompressed and can contain other information?  Bitmaps are compressed RAW files with less information?  Don't know what the extra information would be for RAW files, but I believe RAW files are huge in size in comparison to even Bitmaps.

Again, a complete stab in the dark.  I am by no means a photographer.

[Llorean]

Bitmap images store pixels in up to 24 bit values and have some extra header information to describe the data. Raw is in the frame buffer format. While neither is compressed, the bitmap needs to be converted to frame buffer format at load. The core can do this. I believe the main reason it was raw was the bootloader could not.

[Mad Cow]

Bitmap images store pixels in up to 24 bit values and have some extra header information to describe the data. Raw is in the frame buffer format. While neither is compressed, the bitmap needs to be converted to frame buffer format at load. The core can do this. I believe the main reason it was raw was the bootloader could not.

That makes sense, but I still like the RAW approach. Most of the time it's the custom build creators that want to change this, and they have all the tools they need ready.

[Llorean]

There is no overall benefit to making the file be raw. Why do you like it? I'm thinking something is not being communicated clearly here.

[Mad Cow]

What I'm saying is, it works, and there's nothing wrong with it in my opinion. I don't want another big bootloader change just for a different approach to bootsplash images.

[Llorean]

The bootsplash should NEVER have been in the bootloader in the first place.

[Mad Cow]

I know, I'm just saying that I like the approach. You don't need to recompile just to change the bootsplash image.