* Sharing code between Linux and bootloader (U-boot) ? @ 2016-05-20 14:28 Sebastian Frias 2016-05-21 1:41 ` [U-Boot] " Tom Rini 2016-05-30 11:35 ` Holger Schurig 0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Sebastian Frias @ 2016-05-20 14:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel Hi, Some bootloaders (like U-boot) support several HW devices: serial, network, NAND, USB, etc. most of which are also supported by Linux. So the question is: is code shared? I mean, I understand that the drivers need to talk to the appropriate API, and such API could be different between Linux and U-boot. But putting that aside, would it be naive to imagine that some "core" functionality could be shared? Or would that part be so small it is not worth the effort? Since many companies use both, U-boot and Linux, I would figure they try their best to optimize engineering resources and share code, right? In that case, I also wonder how do they share DT descriptions that right now are being stored in the Linux kernel tree. We'd like to share code/DT for obvious reasons, what would you guys suggest? Best regards, Sebastian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] Sharing code between Linux and bootloader (U-boot) ? 2016-05-20 14:28 Sharing code between Linux and bootloader (U-boot) ? Sebastian Frias @ 2016-05-21 1:41 ` Tom Rini 2016-05-23 13:22 ` Sebastian Frias 2016-05-30 11:35 ` Holger Schurig 1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Tom Rini @ 2016-05-21 1:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 04:28:23PM +0200, Sebastian Frias wrote: > Hi, > > Some bootloaders (like U-boot) support several HW devices: serial, > network, NAND, USB, etc. most of which are also supported by Linux. > > So the question is: is code shared? I mean, I understand that the > drivers need to talk to the appropriate API, and such API could be > different between Linux and U-boot. > But putting that aside, would it be naive to imagine that some "core" > functionality could be shared? Or would that part be so small it is > not worth the effort? > > Since many companies use both, U-boot and Linux, I would figure they > try their best to optimize engineering resources and share code, > right? > In that case, I also wonder how do they share DT descriptions that > right now are being stored in the Linux kernel tree. > > We'd like to share code/DT for obvious reasons, what would you guys > suggest? So, in all cases, Linux is always the primary. In some cases in U-Boot we port drivers over (NAND is a good example here). In other cases, things are similar enough that it's having done it in one place it's easy enough to do it again in the other. -- Tom -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20160520/085f7137/attachment.sig> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] Sharing code between Linux and bootloader (U-boot) ? 2016-05-21 1:41 ` [U-Boot] " Tom Rini @ 2016-05-23 13:22 ` Sebastian Frias 0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Sebastian Frias @ 2016-05-23 13:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel Hi Tom, On 05/21/2016 03:41 AM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 04:28:23PM +0200, Sebastian Frias wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Some bootloaders (like U-boot) support several HW devices: serial, >> network, NAND, USB, etc. most of which are also supported by Linux. >> >> So the question is: is code shared? I mean, I understand that the >> drivers need to talk to the appropriate API, and such API could be >> different between Linux and U-boot. >> But putting that aside, would it be naive to imagine that some "core" >> functionality could be shared? Or would that part be so small it is >> not worth the effort? >> >> Since many companies use both, U-boot and Linux, I would figure they >> try their best to optimize engineering resources and share code, >> right? >> In that case, I also wonder how do they share DT descriptions that >> right now are being stored in the Linux kernel tree. >> >> We'd like to share code/DT for obvious reasons, what would you guys >> suggest? > > So, in all cases, Linux is always the primary. For drivers and DT? >In some cases in U-Boot > we port drivers over (NAND is a good example here). >From your message, I get that first you write the driver for Linux and then port to U-boot, is that right? I would have thought that the opposite way could be easier, since the U-boot driver could be simpler (maybe no DMA) w.r.t the one in Linux. > In other cases, > things are similar enough that it's having done it in one place it's > easy enough to do it again in the other. > So, basically people just do it again, duplicating code? Best regards, Sebastian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Sharing code between Linux and bootloader (U-boot) ? 2016-05-20 14:28 Sharing code between Linux and bootloader (U-boot) ? Sebastian Frias 2016-05-21 1:41 ` [U-Boot] " Tom Rini @ 2016-05-30 11:35 ` Holger Schurig 1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Holger Schurig @ 2016-05-30 11:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel Sebastian Frias <sf84@laposte.net> writes: Barebox shares a good amount of code. For example, when you look at SPI at AT24/AT25 you'll see that many things are almost identical. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-05-30 11:35 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2016-05-20 14:28 Sharing code between Linux and bootloader (U-boot) ? Sebastian Frias 2016-05-21 1:41 ` [U-Boot] " Tom Rini 2016-05-23 13:22 ` Sebastian Frias 2016-05-30 11:35 ` Holger Schurig
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).