[U-Boot] Mainline u-boot on socfpga (SocKit) board

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> > I know that mainline U-Boot SPL is quite far from working on
> > socfpga... but would like to ask, what is the status of U-Boot
> > proper. That should work on socfpga, right? Or are there some pieces
> > missing?
> > 
> > I tried 
> > 
> > commit 173d294b94cfec10063a5be40934d6d8fb7981ce
> > Merge: 33b0f7b 870e0bd
> > Author: Tom Rini <trini at ti.com>
> > Date:   Tue May 6 14:55:45 2014 -0400
> > 
> >     Merge branch 'serial' of git://www.denx.de/git/u-boot-microblaze
> > 
> > and it just dies with no output.
> > 
> > I'd really like to get something close to mainline working, so that I
> > can generate patches etc.
> > 
> 
> The missing piece here is the SDRAM driver. This is a big piece as
> U-boot require the SDRAM to run. As of now, I am enhancing the existing
> SDRAM drivers to ensure its compliance with the coding standard. 

I know about missing SDRAM driver, but that is in u-boot-spl, not
u-boot (right?). I know u-boot-spl is not feasible right now, but I'd
like to get at least u-boot proper to work. Is that something else
that is known to be missing?

> But nevertheless, it poses another challenge when come to license. The
> driver is currently licensed under BSD-3 clause. Wonder can we upstream
> BSD-3 clause code? Any advise would be appreciated.

So: You are copyright holders, you can change the license. (Right?)

Second, it seems that BSD-3 clause is actually GPL-compatible:

Best regards,
									Pavel

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses

Modified BSD license (#ModifiedBSD)
This is the original BSD license, modified by removal of the
advertising clause. It is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software
license, compatible with the GNU GPL.

This license is sometimes referred to as the 3-clause BSD license.

The modified BSD license is not bad, as lax permissive licenses go,
though the Apache 2.0 license is preferable. However, it is risky to
recommend use of “the BSD license”, even for special cases such as
small programs, because confusion could easily occur and lead to use
of the flawed original BSD license. To avoid this risk, you can
suggest the X11 license instead. The X11 license and the modified
revised BSD license are more or less equivalent.

However, the Apache 2.0 license is better for substantial programs,
since it prevents patent treachery.

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html