From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wolfgang Grandegger Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 21:59:10 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] U-Boot-NG ? In-Reply-To: References: <20070630020850.22A711B2CB9@mercury.denx.de> <46597312D56D2A47A3A6E9C1D0D9B7AEB0C4F2@kpladc0001.konzeptpark.intra> <20070703175856.GB8839@pengutronix.de> Message-ID: <468AAA8E.8000601@grandegger.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Grant Likely wrote: > On 7/3/07, Rune Torgersen wrote: >>> From: Grant Likely >>> On 7/3/07, Rune Torgersen wrote: >>> Other than effort required; any objection to changing that approach? >>> >> I personally believe that the terminal output capabilities of U-Boot (ie >> having serial or other output almost as soon as you can run C code) is >> one of the biggest strong points of u-boot, and are very useful when >> doing a board bringup or debugging non-working boards. >> Changing that would be a mistake on my opinion (even for reducing code >> size/complexity). > > Sorry; let me be more specific; any objection to moving device > initialization to *after* relocation to RAM. I'm not asking about > removing console output. Initialization of some devices could even be deferred until they are really used like PCMCIA/IDE or DTT. Wolfgang.