[U-Boot] ARM: vexpress: Extend default boot sequence to load script from MMC

[Tom Rini]

On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy)
<jon.medhurst at linaro.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 07:51 -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 1:32 AM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy)
>> <jon.medhurst at linaro.org> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 13:46 -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:46 AM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy)
>> >> <jon.medhurst at linaro.org> wrote:
>> >> > Extend the default boot sequence on Versatile Express to load a boot
>> >> > script from MMC.
>> >> >
>> >> > Signed-off-by: Jon Medhurst <jon.medhurst at linaro.org>
>> >>
>> >> Is there any interest in defining a common 'fancy' boot command?  Over
>> >> on beagleboard (and a few other eval boards) we are (or will be)
>> >> doing, roughly:
>> >> Is there mmc? {
>> >>   Can we load a bootscript? {
>> >>     load it, do it
>> >>   }
>> >>   Can we load uEnv.txt? {
>> >>     Did it set 'uenvcmd'? {
>> >>       Run it
>> >>     }
>> >>   }
>> >>   Did we load the kernel? {
>> >>     bootm it
>> >>   }
>> >> }
>> >> Try nand.
>> >>
>> >> And it's not hard to replace NAND with "whatever flash the board sets"
>> >
>> > It could make sense. However, the combinations of boot methods could get
>> > quite big, e.g. do we include pxeboot, tftp?
>>
>> Well, maybe we define some blocks (TRY_MMC, TRY_ENET, TRY_NAND,
>> TRY_SPI, ...) ...
>>
>> > If everything was included in the common 'fancy boot' then some boards
>> > would have to define boot methods (or stubs) for things they weren't
>> > interested in. And, conversely, if fancy boot didn't include everything,
>> > then other people would need to extend it.
>>
>> ... provide a few examples of the blocks strung together and have
>> people string up what they need themselves, so long as it's an
>> otherwise good idea to have complex default boot methods?
>
> If something like this was planned for BeagleBoard anyway, then perhaps
> it could written in terms of these TRY_MMC etc. macros (which seem like
> a reasonable idea to me). Then a working prototype could be posted as an
> RFC for others to comment on? I suspect at the moment there's not many
> people reading this 'vexpress' thread ;-)

Note that beagleboard already has the switch logic, but I see your
point, and it's on my TODO list, hopefully in time for v2012.03 tho.

-- 
Tom