The current label "Firmware" is misleading.
At first, I assumed it expected a firmware package (for example, an archive containing partition images), so I tried to upload that instead of a standalone u-Boot binary.
Renaming the field to "u-Boot image" (or "u-Boot binary") would make it immediately clear that the tool expects only a u-Boot image.
There is another indication that the current label is confusing: after selecting a file in the Firmware field, the application reports something like "Uploading u-Boot..." during the upload process.
If the application itself refers to the selected file as u-Boot, the field label should use the same terminology for consistency and to prevent users from selecting the wrong file.
The current label "Firmware" is misleading.
At first, I assumed it expected a firmware package (for example, an archive containing partition images), so I tried to upload that instead of a standalone u-Boot binary.
Renaming the field to "u-Boot image" (or "u-Boot binary") would make it immediately clear that the tool expects only a u-Boot image.
There is another indication that the current label is confusing: after selecting a file in the Firmware field, the application reports something like "Uploading u-Boot..." during the upload process.
If the application itself refers to the selected file as u-Boot, the field label should use the same terminology for consistency and to prevent users from selecting the wrong file.