[U-Boot] [PATCH 10/10] ARM: socfpga: arria10: add support for building Arria10

[Pavel Machek <pavel@denx.de>]

Hi!

> > > > > One of the nice thing of U-Boot over SPL is the console support
> > > > > and
> > > > > ability to troubleshoot.
> > > > > This is possible with Arria 10 SoC as we have larger OCRAM (256kB
> > > > > vs CV
> > > > > SoC 64kB).
> > > > 
> > > > OK, that's not really the point here -- the point is, if you
> > > > compile enough
> > > > features into U-Boot, it will be bigger than those 256k. What will
> > > > you do
> > > > then ?
> > > 
> > > You'll compile small U-Boot, and use it to load larger U-Boot, as he
> > > said in the mark "HERE" above.
> > > 
> > > And yes, I guess that makes sense, and yes, we should finally make
> > > loading U-Boot from U-Boot oficially supported, at least on Socfpga.
> > 
> > Yup, you got it :)
> > Thanks
> 
> So why exactly don't we use SPL instead ? The purpose of SPL is to do exactly 
> this without the extra cruft which is part of U-Boot and the unnecessary 
> overhead of the full U-Boot. And you don't need to hack U-Boot to support 
> loading U-Boot.

You don't need to hack anything, it just works today.

And yes, U-Boot is easier to work with, because it has commandline,
etc.

In ideal world, U-Boot SPL would disappear. You'd just compile small
"U-Boot 1" and bigger "U-Boot 2". Lets get there...  No need for
arbitrary limitations like "Full U-Boot can't initialize sdram" or
"U-Boot SPL can't have command line".
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html