[U-Boot-Users] uploading OS over network instead of u-boot do wnloading it from a server.

[Wolfgang Denk]

Charles,

in message <DF2B720CF774D21189EE00805FA7FA220B909B67 at nmrusdunsx3.nielsenmedia.com> you wrote:
> 
> >What's so complicated about this? See for example how  Abatron  ships
> >their  BDI2000s  -  they  include  a free TFTP server on their floppy
> >disks which is so simple that even a Windoze user can start it.
> 
> You're making assumptions here that I don't believe are appropriate:

It is your assumption that I make assumptions, or maybe  my  lack  of
skill  of  the  English language, which is not my native language. In
any case, I was just trying to suggest alternative solutions.

> 1. You are assuming that Brian's customers are at least as sophisticated as
> Abatron customers.  Brian's original statement leads me to believe this is
> not so.

Indeed I think they are. Typing "tftpsrv" (or which other ways  there
are to start the supplied application "tftpsrv.exe") is IMHO no a big
challenge. And this is all you need to do.

> 2. You are assuming that you know more about Brian's customers than either
> he or his Marketing group does.  Ultimately, it is the responsibility of a
> company's Marketing group to determine what a customer is capable of and
> will tolerate.

I don't think I gave any indication of such assumptions.


> >No, it is not. You are trying to re-invent the wheel. 
> 
> This is certainly an emphatic statement.  The least you could have done here
> is to prefix it with "IMHO".  

Then I will have to prefix all my  statements  that  way.  Of  course
_everything_  I  write  is  just  my opinion. Sometime MHO, sometimes
MNSHO.


> U-boot supports the target-as-client method of downloading but does not
> support the target-as-server method.  I've used both methods a number of
> times over the years and both have their advantages and disadvantages.  Your

Can you please explain the advantages of the  boot  loader  providing
server function?

> position seems to be that u-boot does everything useful for downloading.
> Therefore, if u-boot doesn't "do it", then "it" must be a duplication.  I
> disagree.  IMHO, target-as-server boot loading is a good idea.  The two
> methods are useful in different circumstances and are not, IMHO, a
> reinvention.  
> 
> At the company I work for, we have three different MPC850 designs that work
> together to form our new system.  The boot code in all three units contains
> a target-as-server (UDP over Ethernet) loader.  We use this UDP/Ethernet
> boot loader in exactly the mode that Brian is referring to above.  It

Did you use any standard download protocol, like  TFTP,  or  did  you
implement  your  own  proprietary download protocol? Maybe you had to
implement your own upload tool, too? If so, I see no  real  advantage
of  starting  your  upload  application  or  starting  a  TFTP server
application. IMHO, of course.

> The way I see it, one of the benefits of these lists is discussion.  To cut
> off discussion as you did is, IMHO, not productive.

OK, so let's discuss a little of U-Boot design philosophy - as I  see
it. YMMV.

U-Boot is a Boot Loader, not an OS.

U-Boot shall be powerful to use, yet simple  in  design  to  make  it
easily portable to new boards and architectures.

This means U-Boot will be strictly single-tasking; it  will  not  use
virtual  memory; it will use polling drivers (versus interrupt driven
ones) whenever possible.

U-Boot shall use standard protocols and interfaces whenever possible.


If you implement a TFTP server  function  within  U-Boot,  this  will
block  until  it's finished (probably after a succesful upload?). OK,
you can use a canned command sequence to accept an  upload  and  then
start the uploaded image.

But the same can be done when using TFTP on U-Boot.


And if - for example during development -  interactive  operation  is
required  or  wanted,  you  will have to type to _one_ interface only
(U-Boot). Otherwise you have to switch between U-Boot  (start  server
function),  host (run upload client), and back to U-Boot (start image
or so).

I'm sorry, but IMHO there is no advantage running  a  server  in  the
boot loader.

Perhaps you might be so kind as to elucidate.



[There _is_  some  use  for  server-like  functions  in  U-Boot:  for
example,  many  people  have  asked why U-Boot does not reply to ICMP
messages (ping requests). There is no doubt that this would be a nice
feature. On the other hand, think what it needs:  you  will  have  to
always  enable  the  network interface(s), you will have to deal with
situations like when MAC addresses and/or IP addresses are  not  set,
and you will have to deal with incoming network packets at any time -
this  would  make  the U-Boot design much more complicated. It _is_ a
nice feature, but not worth the effort. IMHO.]



Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87  Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88  Email: wd at denx.de
My challenge to the goto-less programmer  is  to  recode  tcp_input()
without any gotos ... without any loss of efficiency (there has to be
a catch).                                             - W. R. Stevens