Hi Siarhei!
Am 01.09.2015 um 15:54 schrieb Siarhei Siamashka:
The SPL header is Allwinner specific and we are kinda in control of it.
The U-Boot header is used for a wide range of devices and architectures
and you should be prepared to encounter a (perfectly justified) opposition
if you propose changes to it.
You can read SRAM from the main U-Boot binary and access the SPL header
just fine. That's the mechanism to pass boot information, which already
implicitly exists.
After looking a bit closer at actual U-Boot and mksunxiboot code, I fully
agree. Having a "sunxi" header (that could be extended as needed) under
our control, and readily accessible in SRAM, seems indeed the natural
"transport" choice.
There is one more interesting thing, which can potentially speed up
booting (the fastboot patches from Maxime):
http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2015-August/226053.html
http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2015-September/226207.html
http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2015-September/226211.html
It does not have to be fastboot, but any USB protocol would be fine
as long as it provides the necessary features (upload of the kernel,
DTB blob, initrd, ...) and works faster than FEL transfers :-)
From what I've read so far, fastboot is a transport mechanism that has to
be implemented by U-Boot (once it's up and running). So I take it this
wouldn't immediately affect the new SPL header (logic) and "fel" utility?
(And the newly gained ability to recognize/support FEL boot would still
come in handy if we plan to actually support a "two-stage" boot,
including a transition to a different transfer protocol.)
Regards, B. Nortmann
--
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.
