If you remove any commands you don't actually need from CONFIG_COMMANDS<br>you can strip you executable size down a fair bit. But if you need tftp support, <br>you won't be able to get down to 32Kb.<br><br>Good luck
<br><span class="sg"> Amnon</span><br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 3/2/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Laurent Pinchart</b> <<a href="mailto:laurent.pinchart@technotrade.biz">laurent.pinchart@technotrade.biz
</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Hi Martin,<br><br>> > I would like to use U-Boot as a first-stage boot loader to program
<br>> > flash memory on the target board. The idea is to perform a two-steps<br>> > procedure:<br>> ><br>> > 1. Program the first-stage boot loader in flash using JTAG (slow)<br>><br>> There are JTAG programmers, which could work very fast (e. g. BDI2000
<br>> with workspace enabled). The limiting factor is the flash itself,<br>> not the programmer, or the JTAG interface.<br>><br>> > 2. The first-stage boot loader downloads the final boot loader<br>> > (full-featured U-Boot) using TFTP and writes it to flash (fast)
<br>> ><br>> > To minimize time spent in step one, I need to make the first-stage<br>> > boot loader as small as possible (hopefully less than 32kB). Has<br>> > anyone ever stripped U-Boot that much ? Is there any documentation
<br>> > available ?<br>><br>> If programming speed is the only reason for your two-step approach,<br>> then IMO this is not reasonable. It would be a waste of your time. Use<br>> a faster JTAG programmer instead. Or you could buy the flashes
<br>> preprogrammed.<br><br>Buying the flashes preprogrammed is not an option given the quantities.<br><br>We already have a BDI2000 which has issues programming the flash using the<br>workspace, so it reverts to the slow pure JTAG mode. I still have to
<br>investigate this directly with Abatron, we haven't found a solution so far.<br><br>Even using the internal workspace, the BDI2000 is not a very practical<br>solution, as it wouldn't be easy to integrate it in our test bench
<br>architecture. The price is also an issue. This is why I was looking for<br>another solution. The alternative I thought of is using a pure JTAG<br>programmer (slow) with a tiny ethernet-enabled boot loader. The Freescale
<br>JTAG commands used to control the processor are not documented, so I can't<br>develop a faster JTAG-only alternative. Are you aware of any other solution ?<br><br>Laurent Pinchart<br><br>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
<br>Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT<br>Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your<br>opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash<br>
<a href="http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV">http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV</a><br>_______________________________________________
<br>U-Boot-Users mailing list<br><a href="mailto:U-Boot-Users@lists.sourceforge.net">U-Boot-Users@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br><a href="https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/u-boot-users">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/u-boot-users
</a><br></blockquote></div><br>