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

[Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>]

On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 03:01:09 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!

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.

I do not necessarily need this overhead.

> 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".

This can be done by converging SPL to normal U-Boot, but that's not gonna
happen instantaneously.

Best regards,
Marek Vasut