Hi Wolfgang, On Monday 16 May 2011 01:18 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Aneesh V, > > In message<[email protected]> you wrote: >> Define a new type of SPL that is not tied to any particular media. >> - Create a top level directory 'spl' that has a structure similar >> to the existing 'nand_spl' >> - Make necessary changes to top-level Makefile to build such an spl >> >> Rationale for this approach: >> - There may be SPLs(like the OMAP x-loader) that support booting from >> multiple media. >> - Also, there is no harm in keeping SPLs specific to a particular media >> also under this directory. In fact it makes sense to merge all the >> different spl directories into this one. > > Thanks a lot for addressing this. This is an area that has long been > on my mind, and I'm really happy to see someone starting to work on > this.
> > In addition to booting from different types of media, I see at least > two more topics that scould and should addressed by this work: > > - Get rid of xloader. I cannot see any good reasons why we need it, > i. e. which functions if performs that cannot be as well (and > eventually even more efficiently) be performed in the U-Boot SPL > code. Indeed, SPL is seen as a replacement for x-loader. > > - Become more flexible regarding the kind of second stage payload. > It is definitely very powerful and convenient during development to > be able to load U-Boot with all it's capabilities as payload of the > SPL, but then, except for image size and parameter passing, there is > little or no difference to loading a Linux kernel directly instead > (and actually this is what most of the super-fast booting approaches > do). If done right, we may even have the flexibility to do both, > just by providing different images as payload. > How do we handle the differences you just mentioned, namely the size, parameter passing etc. Maybe, we should have special handling for each and define config flags like CONFIG_SPL_PAYLOAD_UBOOT, CONFIG_SPL_PAYLOAD_LINUX_KERNEL etc? > >> Signed-off-by: Aneesh V<[email protected]> >> --- >> This patch generates 1 checkpatch warning due to declaration >> of DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR. This is un-avoidable >> --- >> Makefile | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> arch/arm/include/asm/global_data.h | 5 +++++ >> 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > Here the commit message and the implementation do not agree. You > wrote "Create a top level directory 'spl'" - but I don't see any of > that here? In this patch, I just created the makefile infrastructure that expects this directory structure. The files are created later in an OMAP specific patch. I think I should have used something like "define a directory structure" instead of "create". > > I think this should be split into a separate patch series, and care > should be taken that commit messages and implementaiton match. Ok. > > Best regards, > > Wolfgang Denk > _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
