Hi Ilya, On Monday 27 June 2011 01:54 PM, Ilya Yanok wrote: > Hi Aneesh, > > On 27.06.2011 08:29, Aneesh V wrote: >>> I wonder why do we need this whole spl thing in the first place (well, >>> surely I know what they are used for but why do we need a separate entity >>> for this)? Isn't it just the same U-Boot in, well, very special >>> configuration >>> (minimal set of drivers, no shell, etc)? Why do we need a whole shadow >>> tree >>> at spl/ instead of just providing the _configuration_? >>> >>> Am I missing something? >> >> The reason is that the regular U-Boot is not configurable enough to >> build the extremely small images that should fit in internal RAM. The >> last time I attempted, I ended up getting an ~60KB image for >> OMAP4(that too without any of the hardware initialization I am adding >> in my SPL work). > > Yes, surely I understand that currently U-Boot is not configurable > enough to meet hard SPL constraints. But why don't we add the required > configuration options instead of implementing the SPL thing separately? > Again, maybe I'm missing something but it looks like not very difficult > task to add the required configuration options and this approach seems > to be more straight to me... >
I agree. SPL, as I understand, was an easy workaround for this problem. But if we are spending a lot of time on SPL framework, we may rather solve the real problem(Oh no, I am not volunteering:-)) Honestly, I have no idea how much effort that will be. Actually, I had raised this point sometime back. But that was more in favor of keeping SPL the way it is now and not adding anymore complexity. http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?group=gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot&article=100550 best regards, Aneesh _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
