From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.ebshome.net (gate.ebshome.net [64.81.67.12]) (using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits)) (Client CN "gate.ebshome.net", Issuer "gate.ebshome.net" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3EAC682C0 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 03:15:02 +1000 (EST) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 10:14:59 -0700 From: Eugene Surovegin To: Stefan Roese Message-ID: <20050919171458.GA8367@gate.ebshome.net> References: <200509191302.15462.sr@denx.de> <20050919065942.A25356@cox.net> <200509191706.24298.sr@denx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <200509191706.24298.sr@denx.de> Cc: linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ppc32: cleanup AMCC PPC4xx eval boards to better support U-Boot List-Id: Linux on Embedded PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 05:06:23PM +0200, Stefan Roese wrote: > Hi Matt, > > On Monday 19 September 2005 15:59, Matt Porter wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 01:02:14PM +0200, Stefan Roese wrote: > > > Just to be sure: The 44x boot-wrapper approach you mention is > > > "boot/simple/pibs.c"? > > > > Yes, there's both boot/simple/pibs.c and boot/simple/openbios.c that > > were created so we could have the default firmware and u-boot use the > > same kernel build. > > Yes, that's what I thought. But Eugene mentioned, that he boots vmlinux > without any boot-wrapper on the OpenBIOS targets (except Ebony probably). Bad phrasing on my part. What I meant was "U-Boot is different from OpenBIOS targets already, as with U-Boot we don't use any boot-wrapper like with OpenBIOS". Sorry for confusion :). -- Eugene