> On Jan 5, 2023, at 6:24 AM, Robert Swindells <r...@fdy2.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> Maybe structure it to allow for some systems not needing U-Boot to be
> added to an image, most systems do need it now but that may change over
> time.
> 
> e.g. A Pinebook Pro with Tow-Boot in SPI flash doesn't need U-Boot as
> well.

I’m not quite sure what you mean by this comment; for example, what does “it” 
refer to in the first sentence?  Are you referring to the document, to the way 
the code works, or to something else?

My understanding is that it may or may not be possible to boot the default 
armv7.img; I can’t really test that myself as my boards require u-boot boot 
blocks which that image does not have.  For those boards that require u-boot 
boot blocks, it is possible for installboot to add them, thus avoiding all the 
manual steps that are otherwise required.  The document simply makes clear (I 
hope) how that works.

If you are suggesting that I mention that some other boards might boot directly 
from the armv7.img, that is great to know.  I would happily add that 
information to the document, but I do not know what to say about which boards 
that applies to.  If anyone can elaborate I am happy to improve the wording in 
this area.

If you are suggesting that the code should work differently, that is more 
complicated and beyond what I am trying to accomplish.  However, knowing what 
people think about how the code should work is potentially useful.

Perhaps you were referring to something else?  For example, a more general 
statement about which boards boot how?  That would be great to have better 
knowledge of, but I do not currently know what to write.

Clarifying this all likely takes more ARM expertise, which is a great reason 
for switching to port-arm@ as you suggest and I have done (see below).

> Also, port-arm@ would probably be a better place to discuss this
> than netbsd-users@.

Great idea.  As noted in my previous message, I started a new thread there with 
the version updated from all the comments I have received so far (and changed 
reply-to: to reflect that).

Thanks for helping with this.

Cheers,
Brook

Reply via email to