Kumar Gala wrote: > On Jul 28, 2008, at 12:40 PM, Grant Likely wrote: >> In principle I like the idea of having configuration retrieved from >> the device tree blob, but the idea of reflashing the blob in the >> context of u-boot scares me. In particular, if u-boot depends too >> much on the presence of the blob, then it becomes a method of >> bricking a board if users are able/expected to reflash the blob. > > I dont see reflashing the blob as any different than reflashing > u-boot itself w/respect to bricking a board.
But currently it *is* different, so user expectations might need adjusting. > But I agree, in general I would hope u-boot would be able to still > boot w/o the device tree information (might be crippled, but you > could recover). That'd mean that we'd still have to have serial, memory controller (at least to a functional level, not necessarily with performance settings), i2c (if used for memory init), ethernet (unless you accept needing to use serial to load a new image), etc. described in config.h. It's not too unreasonable, especially during an interim period where people get used to the device tree being an integral part of u-boot, but it does limit the scope of what we use the tree for. -Scott ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ U-Boot-Users mailing list U-Boot-Users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/u-boot-users
