From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Albert ARIBAUD Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 11:54:13 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] Building two different "SPL" for the same board? In-Reply-To: <1369299219.20995.14.camel@localhost> References: <1368813967.3925.23.camel@localhost> <20130517181719.GW32163@bill-the-cat> <1368824185.12475.13.camel@localhost> <20130522152653.GF10368@bill-the-cat> <1369299219.20995.14.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <20130523115413.4e5aad2d@lilith> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hi Henrik, On Thu, 23 May 2013 10:53:39 +0200, Henrik Nordstr?m wrote: > ons 2013-05-22 klockan 11:26 -0400 skrev Tom Rini: > > > If we can implement it cleanly, this isn't (at the 1000 meter view) all > > that much different than what we do on some PowerPC platforms today > > where everything must fit within a few kilobytes. > > Yes it is quite doable. The pieces I have done should be possible to fit > without too much effort. > > The question is more if these kinds of board initialization only > programs is seen as suitable for having in the u-boot tree. It's not > really an SPL as it does not load anything, but it's 99.9% the same code > as used in u-boot SPL. My opinion is that such code fits in U-Boot quite well. After all, SPL too was "that much shorter bit of code that was run before U-Boot because U-Boot is too large to load and run directly on this platform". Granted, SPL now tends to outgrow itself -- to the point that it becomes more of a 'lightweight U-Boot', as Falcon mode shows -- but obviously, there is a need for a very short code piece that can fit in e.g. a NAND access device's read buffer. > Regards > Henrik Amicalement, -- Albert.