On 15.12.2016 08:21, Michal Simek wrote: > On 14.12.2016 16:00, Mike Looijmans wrote: >> >>> I am not marketing guy to say how often there are designs with only >>> different DDR size like Mike's example but in fpga world you are not >>> buying this chip to have only static part but you want to use fpga part >>> and for that you need to use design tools. Because every design is >>> unique you can generate device tree description directly from design >>> tools which covers your target and this is what I believe people use. >> >> Well, I can't speak for everyone... >> >> Most people don't want to write (or even compile) a new bootloader for >> each and every project. For our Miami SOMs, there are already more >> full-custom carrier boards than evaluation boards. If we had to build a >> bootloader for each such design, there'd be dozens of them. >> >> What we try to do is just use the generic bootloader to get the SOM up >> and running, and then provide all the project hardware details in the >> kernel's final devicetree. That includes changing pinmuxing and clocks >> and stuff, which is easy to do. > > That's nothing against what I have said. Having as much flexibility you > need is great. We should support several method how to setup stuff and > it is up to user if this method is suitable for you or not and doing > these selection via Kconfig is the way we need to go. > For all these autodetection algorithms you have to be sure that it is > working fine on your platform based on testing.
Just a note for everybody. V2 patches contain compilation issue for several boards. I have reported it back to Nathan to fix it. Here is a log. https://travis-ci.org/michalsimek-test/u-boot/jobs/184187944 Thanks, Michal _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot