[U-Boot-Users] Re: FT u-boot shim
Jerry Van Baren
gerald.vanbaren at smiths-aerospace.com
Thu Apr 27 21:33:28 CEST 2006
Kumar Gala wrote:
>> Let's say we have to support such situations, too.
>>> * dts owned by u-boot??
>> I'm not sure about this. I tend to believe the dts belongs to the
>>> Some questions/issues:
>>> * ownership of .dts is problematic. I hate having a file duplicated
>>> by both u-boot and kernel. However it also seems bad to make the
>>> build of either depend on the user grabbing a dts from some third
>>> party. Ideas? A concrete example would be the MPC8349 ADS/SYS/MDS
>>> port. Boards ship with an "old" u-boot, thus we need a kernel
>>> wrapper with .dts. However, newer u-boot's can (hopefully will) have
>>> a dts in them
>> Can we provide the dts as a separate blob that gets built with the
>> kernel image? From U-Boot's point of view, this could be a multi-file
>> image which combines the dts and the kernel into a single file so
>> that users don't have to care much about this.
> The problem is that there are somethings that u-boot knows that needs
> to go into the blob (memory size, boot args, initrd info,
> frequencies, etc.)
> - kumar
A thought that keeps recurring (but I've suppressed because I don't have
time to play...) is that it would be Really Cool[tm] to store the u-boot
env variables in a flat tree and then pass the env/tree to linux. It
also sounds like a major change & disruption to u-boot :-(. I haven't
looked at what it would do to code size either.
U-boot could then be a better OpenBoot than OpenBoot ;-)
More information about the U-Boot