On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:21:45 +0100
Ian Campbell <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-07-14 at 14:22 +0200, Bernhard Nortmann wrote:
> > Regarding the 'auto-execution' of code: I think this is somewhat
> > independent of
> > the suggested extension to load the main U-Boot binary. It would probably be
> > useful if the fel utility was able to keep track of addresses it has
> > written to (this
> > includes the "write" command), so a later "fel exe" could refer - or
> > even default -
> > to them. Maybe it's possible to also introduce 'symbolic' names for specific
> > addresses? I'm thinking "fel exe uboot" here... (with "uboot" being set /
> > preserved from the aw_fel_write_uboot_image function)
>
> That does sound cool, but perhaps a lot of work to achieve?
>
> Perhaps a simpler thing which would get 80% of the benefit would be to
> add an --exec flag to the existing command? (Or default on and a flag to
> not do it, as people prefer).
Yes, that's what I'm suggesting too.
But instead of "fel --exec spl u-boot-sunxi-with-spl.bin", in my opinion
it would be much better to use the "fel uboot u-boot-sunxi-with-spl.bin"
syntax.
It is shorter to type and is more intuitive ("spl" implies that only
the SPL part is executed and "uboot" implies that the whole U-Boot is
executed).
Also I'm not a big fan of adding a flag, which only applies to a single
command.
--
Best regards,
Siarhei Siamashka
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"linux-sunxi" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
