From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Timur Tabi Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 09:55:56 -0500 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] CFG_MONITOR_BASE < CFG_FLASH_BASE In-Reply-To: <464B951E.206@ovro.caltech.edu> References: <20070516220434.ABD38352650@atlas.denx.de> <464B818F.60509@freescale.com> <464B951E.206@ovro.caltech.edu> Message-ID: <464C6CFC.7020602@freescale.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de David Hawkins wrote: > The MPC8349E can be booted such that the core is held in > reset, and the processor registers can be configured over > PCI by another host computer. Therefore it is conceivable > that the host can program the SDRAM controller on the > MPC8349E and take the core out of reset. If the core > is configured to boot from an address mapped to SDRAM, > then U-Boot could have been copied to SDRAM by the > host. Once U-Boot boots, it could then use FTP etc > to boot the kernel blah blah ... Ok fine, but you're talking about an 8349 on a different board. I have a *board* header file for the MPC8349E-mITX, which comes with 16MB of flash and works just fine. I've done the hard work of getting U-Boot running on that board with flash. So the question is, am I going to upset someone if I remove support for booting from RAM on that board? -- Timur Tabi Linux Kernel Developer @ Freescale