From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jon Medhurst (Tixy) <jon.medhurst@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 15:19:06 +0000
Subject: [U-Boot] ARM: vexpress: Extend default boot sequence to load
 script from MMC
In-Reply-To: <CA+M6bXnNgA-_V42yGvxBmNLOXYUOMRbssF+_Z1jD9H8mbCS_6Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1322574376.4500.34.camel@linaro1>
	<CA+M6bX=gshj+0NDxbnvefcyc_Zgneh2xu7QFCv6N7hF565CjmQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1322641942.2321.13.camel@linaro1>
	<CA+M6bXnNgA-_V42yGvxBmNLOXYUOMRbssF+_Z1jD9H8mbCS_6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1322666346.3969.26.camel@linaro1>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

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@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@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@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 ;-)

-- 
Tixy