Hi Heiko, On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:31:12 +0200, Heiko Schocher <h...@denx.de> wrote:
> Hello Albert, > > Am 31.07.2013 10:16, schrieb Albert ARIBAUD: > > Hi Heiko, > > > > On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 09:36:19 +0200, Heiko Schocher<h...@denx.de> wrote: > > > >>> On the other hand, it may be hard to immediately know what functions > >>> throughout U-boot are safe to call from within board_init_f(); maybe we > >>> should start thinking about checking and marking these, the simplest > >>> way being to suffix them with "_f" once we have made sure they are safe > >>> to call from within board_init_f(). > >> > >> Hmmm... Maybe instead we should think (also in thinking common bring > >> up for all boards) about: > >> > >> getting rid of board_init_f in u-boot code, instead use for all > >> boards spl code to init needed things and copy and relocate u-boot > >> to ram in spl code ... so we have in u-boot no longer such > >> restictions ... but thats just an idea which whirs in my head ... > >> without thinking to deep in it. > >> > >> But this approach would have some advantages ... > > > > Well, the original SPL was basically board_init_f() plus some code to > > copy U-Boot from wherever it was to DDR, so it was tightly linked to > > board_init_f(). But... first, SPL has evolved into a "U-Boot lite" > > where much can happen beyond board_init_f() -- think Falcon mode, for > > instance -- and second, there are boards which do not have SPL at all, > > and their board_init_f() can thus not be "moved to SPL". > > Hmm... all boards use board_init_f ... and spl do pieces from board_init_f > So why should it not be possible to do all init things in spl code? > Code beyond board_init_f is optional ... It is, in the original "SPL is just board_init_f plus some copying" view. In the current "SPL is U-boot only not full-featured", it becomes false. > And yes, there are a lot of boards, which have no spl, but they > can execute spl code (thinking of the lof of powerpc boards which > booting from nor flash ... spl code can also run from nor ... and > copy the u-boot piece of the image to ram, relocate it ...) > > And yes, a side effect could be, that all boards can use Falcon boot mode. > > ;-) > > > So no, I don't think we can move U-Boot's design from "_f/_r" to > > "SPL/U-Boot". > > I am not sure ... I see this approach of likening SPL to _f and U-boot to _r as forcing a dual-binary model onto all boards whereas not all boards require it. I prefer a model where _f can exist, _r can exist, and for each target, the maintainer decides which binaries are built and for each one, whether _f and/or _r is present and what _r does. Amicalement, -- Albert. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
