[U-Boot-Users] lkc support for U-Boot My $0.02 worth
wd at denx.de
Thu Nov 7 18:41:59 CET 2002
In message <8D7C5F56B409554D9D46AC22195807F3061B3B at exchwenz01.dmcwave.co.nz> you wrote:
> I know progress is a thing that cannot be stopped and change is sometimes
> positive. But my preference is that we stick with the make file
> configuration approach. It is small easy to add new configurations of
> either boards or CPUs. What is more when starting out it is easy to follow
> what is going on with a make file I maybe an old dog who doesn't like change
> if it isn't broken why fix it?
Because U-Boot claims to be easily portable. And I can understand the
argument that a configuration menu that guides you through all the
questions might be useful.
One of my definitive requiterementes is that the Makefile approach
must not change significantly; only the way how we get a board
specific config header file will change.
Well, I don;t need such a change for myself - I'm probably much
faster to clone an existent port - we've done enough of them that I
will always find one close enough :-) But this does not mean I should
reject new ideas.
I still see technical issues; for example, I have not the slightest
idea how longish definitions like:
#define CONFIG_EXTRA_ENV_SETTINGS \
"key_cmd#=setenv addfb setenv bootargs \\$(bootargs) console=tty0\0" \
"key_cmd3=echo *** Entering Test Mode ***;" \
"setenv add_misc setenv bootargs \\$(bootargs) testmode\0" \
"nfsargs=setenv bootargs root=/dev/nfs rw nfsroot=$(serverip):$(rootpath)\0"
"ramargs=setenv bootargs root=/dev/ram rw\0" \
"addfb=setenv bootargs $(bootargs) console=ttyS1,$(baudrate)\0" \
"addip=setenv bootargs $(bootargs) " \
"add_wdt=setenv bootargs $(bootargs) $(wdt_args)\0" \
"flash_nfs=run nfsargs addip add_wdt addfb;" \
"bootm $(kernel_addr)\0" \
"flash_self=run ramargs addip add_wdt addfb;" \
"bootm $(kernel_addr) $(ramdisk_addr)\0" \
"net_nfs=tftp 100000 /tftpboot/pImage.lwmon;" \
"run nfsargs addip add_wdt addfb;bootm\0" \
"load=tftp 100000 /tftpboot/u-boot.bin\0" \
"update=protect off 1:0;era 1:0;cp.b 100000 40000000 $(filesize)\0" \
can be handled in a readable way, if at all. Things like that. Also,
I fear that adding new features will become much harder, as you'll
have to continually extend the config setup. And finally - has
anybody benchmarked the speed of such a new config scheme? Running a
MAKEALL over all PPC and ARM boards takes a considerable time already
now. I don't really want to add to build time...
Software Engineering: Embedded and Realtime Systems, Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87 Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88 Email: wd at denx.de
See us @ electronica 2002 in Munich, Nov 12-15, Hall A3, Booth A3.325
More information about the U-Boot