-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Somebody in the thread at some point said:
| Could I say roughly: | kboot = minimize uboot(firmware) with 2-stage booting? | If using kboot instead of uboot, the image size and booting time would | not be improved. Your summary is correct AIUI: but the booting time would be improved. In the normal case, you don't use kboot, you only use it to get into ---> | what else would get from kboot, a diagnostic environment with rich utility? ...so in the normal case, you just go booloader -> final kernel in one step and do not use kboot. Boot time improvements are threfore not coming from kboot, they are coming from chopping down U-Boot, not initializing Glamo / LCM there, etc. Still, current setup with U-Boot and NAND is ferociously complicated and also in production test is complicated. Wolfgang mentioned simplification in this area. That would be a good thing here and for future products. It currently looks like despite our best hopes to ditch NAND going on, we won't be able to and we will end up with another GTA02-type situation as far as NAND. So an effort nuking bootloader / NAND back to a bare minimum is worth having with or without kboot. - -Andy -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkgQWAAACgkQOjLpvpq7dMruagCeOg+QaHMqemjx658udzJvGO0E 41AAn0/xU+OsipjUx0ekdoglrhd+fxiJ =gK+D -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
