On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com> wrote: > On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 00:03:13 +0100 > Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de> wrote: > >> Dear Scott Wood, >> >> In message <20101123163204.4f843...@udp111988uds.am.freescale.net> you wrote: >> > >> > How about playing with BATs before entering C code, so that the image >> > always appears at the same effective address? >> >> Not all systems have BATs. > > I was speaking in the context of what he wanted to do with an 83xx board > -- but the concept applies to any hardware with an MMU that isn't too > painful to set up that early. > > If someone wants to do this kind of thing on hardware that doesn't > meet that description, that's another matter -- if the the hardware > doesn't provide a nicer bank switching mechanism (e.g. p4080ds lets you > rotate the flash banks' physical addresses, rather than change the > reset vector), or an SRAM that U-Boot (or an SPL) could copy itself to > before C code, etc.
It seems to me that we are applying at the architecture level a 'nice to have' which may belong at the board level. How many vendors are going to do a fancy 'two U-Boot images' trickery? Will it be (nearly) every 83xx board? I agree with Scott - If you want to do something that fancy, provide support for it in your board hardware. I don't like the idea of diverging the core feature-set available at the architecture level if those features belong more at the SOC or Board level. Regards, Graeme _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot