On Monday 02 June 2008 20:03:26 Werner Almesberger wrote: > Andy Green wrote: > > Right, it's a "what first" question for xiangfu. > > I wonder if he should get sidetracked by u-boot and the partitioning > concept in the first place, particularly since there's extremely little > to do in terms of implementation. > > Specifically, I'd see the following items: > > - add a hard-coded partition table to the default environment > - for good measure, disable the dynpart and dynenv commands > - use a hardcoded offset for the environment instead > - remove dynpart and friends from DM1 > - add a "do we have enough non-bad blocks ?" test to DMx (*) > - update the documentation :-) > - consider simplifying the "FINAL" step > > So most of the real work would be in DMx, not in u-boot proper. > > (*) Using something like > http://svn.openmoko.org/developers/werner/nbad/ > > > It just seems we get teleported to a better win by reducing the > > bootloader to the minimum first. > > Can we phrase this as "not doing weird things in our architecture" ? ;-) > "Reducing the boot loader" sounds like a great waste of time on u-boot. > > For kboot, I'd rather see a simple loader written from scratch. Where > we decide to use u-boot to speed up development, it should already do > what we need. Otherwise, this means just sinking more resources into > u-boot. > > > We have to differentiate between possible GTA01/02 reformat and GTA03 > > usage. All I am worrying about is GTA03.
I don't want to talk too much about future products, but I would vote against going away from NAND for 03 -- there's too many business risks. 03 is about evolution. 04 is revolution. :M:
