On Wednesday 02 September 2009, Siddharth Choudhuri wrote: > I would suggest splitting the "bootloader" partition into two -- (i) ubl > and (ii) uboot. UBL can be 5 blocks (1 + 4 spare blocks) and u-boot > could be the rest of the blocks. One of the advantages of this approach > is that u-boot can be upgraded/reflashed easily from within Linux using > flash_eraseall and nandwrite. (Although, even with the current partition > scheme, u-boot can be written, but requires erasing individual blocks > and could be error prone).
Heh. My suggestion is to go the other way: just a single "bootloader" partition of eight blocks or so. Don't expose any of the substructure at all. Updating U-Boot from Linux seems kind of nice, but on the other hand why not just do it from U-Boot? Either way you have to stick an extra header on the binary. And most folk don't use that demo-quality U-Boot tool to access the u-boot environment block. Thing is, if details of that boot layout aren't exposed to Linux, they can be improved without impacting Linux. Like adding backups for UBL or ABL/U-Boot; or for the U-Boot environment, for that matter. - Dave _______________________________________________ Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list [email protected] http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
