[U-Boot-Users] Re: add new protocol

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Massimiliano,

in message <20041104100839.3cdb9c21.cialdi at firenze.net> you wrote:
> 
> > What's the difference who provides the services, U-Boot or Linux? The
> > peer probably does not care if it's U-Boot or Linux, or does it?
> We don't know what our clients need exactly, and why they want to embed their protocol into u-boot.
> We only know that they pay us to make their protocol works into u-boot.

I guess I don;t have to tell you that  you  will  need  a  _detailed_
understanding  of  their  requirements  before  you  can start with a
software design.

A word of warning in advance: I will most probably  reject  all  such
extensions  based  on  proprietary  protocols  for  the common U-Boot
source tree.

Please try to convince your customer to use open protocols only.

> I think that they could use this protocol to test the features of devices before flashing linux. Once the device
> has pass all tests they download the compressed linux image in the device's flash using their protocol again.
> This is only my guess.

This still makes no sense to me. It is much easier to  load  a  Linux
kernel  to  RAM  and  use  this  to test the system and eventually to
download and flash more/other images.

> Unfortunately in a industrial context (instead of consumer) the "recent versions" are not the answer.
> Our clients have started this project months ago. They started with 0.4.0, they test that version and they
> patched that version to meet their need. Then they wonder if they can use a more recent version.
> The technical answer is: yes, but it's necessary to study new code, rewrite all patches, reimplemnt some algorithm.

OK. Please understand that you will not be able to get _any_  support
for such projects on this mailing list.

Your customer decided to exclude himself from the  community  by  not
providing  his  patches  back  into  the  public  source tree; such a
decision carries with it its own punishment.


If he had supplied his patches in time, all the integration  for  new
versions  would  have  happened  automatically, and all your customer
needed to do was re-running his regression test suite.

It's his choice - I don't care.


> Then it's necessary to retest all devices and software to meet all certification request.
> Estimated time N weeks (with N>15).

You must be joking. In 15 weeks you  can  port  and  test  U-Boot  to
5...10 brand new boards.

> So the commercial answer is: No, we use the old version. Already written, already tested, and already working.

OK, this is your decision (or that or your customer).

> I'm investigating if it is possible to "integrate" patches for 0.4.0 in 1.1.1 in few time, but concurrently I must implement
> the protocol.

1.1.1 is old, too. Please use top of CVS for any new stuff.

You understand that the more work you add to the old  0.4.0  sources,
the more work will be required to update to new code, don't you?


> Tell me which files and which functions I need to "touch" to send/receive udp packets.

net/*

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
See us @ Embedded/Electronica Munich, Nov 09 - 12, Hall A.6 Booth 513
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
To the systems programmer,  users  and  applications  serve  only  to
provide a test load.