On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 21:14:57 +0530 "Premi, Sanjeev" <pr...@ti.com> wrote:
> [sp] I was pointed to this thread through another discussion. I did > see (almost) an agreement reached here. > > But, wanted to share my experience on the same topic. Posed with > same problem, I had looked at minimizing the u-boot binary and > had managed to reach 29-30KB NAND SPL typically needs to fit in just 4 KiB (sometimes even less). > In short, shouldn't we make u-boot more "configurable" so that > parts we consider "integral" in u-boot today can also be excluded > e.g. support for unzip, tftp, ... Those things are configurable. That doesn't mean we don't need makefile infrastructure to build the two (or sometimes three) separate images, or some special code for an extremely minimal image. -Scott _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
