Hi On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Stefano Babic <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Lukasz, hi Michael, > > On 30/10/2013 13:58, Lukasz Majewski wrote: > >> In general the presented structure is correct. >> >> However, I've got other concerns: >> >> The DFU + composite + gadget + UDC driver code is large (around 24KiB >> in binary size [1] for the TRATS). >> >> I'm not sure if this size would be acceptable for SPL. Of course there >> are some spots for code base size reduction (like optimizing and often >> hardcoding code ported from linux kernel). > > Apart of the fact that is possible to add DFU to SPL, I am missing which > is the real advantage. One goal of having split U-Boot into two images > (SPL and U-Boot) is also to get a simpler and smaller image, letting the > main U-Boot image doing the rest (hush shell, further drivers, and so > on). We are now trying to push features that we currently have into SPL. > Well, why cannot we simply run U-Boot if we need a DFU update ? Which > are the real advantages for having DFU in SPL ? >
USB flashing (no serial, no display) only otg Michael > Best regards, > Stefano Babic > > -- > ===================================================================== > DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel > HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany > Phone: +49-8142-66989-53 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80 Email: [email protected] > ===================================================================== _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
