[U-Boot-Users] builtin OF tree dtb gone

[Joakim Tjernlund]

> 
> On Dec 16, 2006, at 12:18 PM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> 
> > As the guy that did the original implementation, my intent was to   
> > keep theDTB along with u-boot.
> > I don't know where you get the idea that it's more "flexible" or   
> > "cleaner" tohave it on a different partition.
> 
> The problem is the dtb is still, and probably always
> be changing.  My concern is even if you put the dtb
> into u-boot, the next version of kernel will probably
> not boot properly because the information needed
> will be different.  So, to boot new kernels you need
> to then update u-boot, which is something no one
> is going to risk in a product.

We do update u-boot in field, no mishaps yet since 2001.
Probably due to a very controlled update procedure.

> 
> All of these ideas are great when you are sitting
> in a lab with an evaluation board, you can update
> u-boot at will, or constantly change other items
> in the flash.  In a real product, no one is going to
> risk a software update that could turn millions of
> working systems into doorstops.  Field upgrades
> of existing Linux systems are already quite complicated,
> and the last thing we need are even more variables
> to cause problems or to track for recovery procedures.
> 
> These changes that add size and maintenance
> complexity to Linux aren't popular for embedded
> products.  People are starting to look again at
> other, even proprietary solutions, due to overall
> cost and lifetime product risk.   If we keep this up,
> we are going to have the best over-engineered
> and unused software around.

I don't get you point w.r.t subject at hand, do you or don't you
support a OF tree compiled into u-boot?

 Jocke