Dear Simon Glass,
In message <CAPnjgZ0E4RfzzL2tfff=cn0xq5ov+v-qtqny3s3zb6hn7sv...@mail.gmail.com>
you wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 9:20 AM, jonsm...@gmail.com <jonsm...@gmail.com> wr=
> ote:
...
> > The concept is to remove SPL as a special class and turn it into the
> > base layer that everything builds on. Changing the model in this was
> > should make the config files easier to understand. Instead of having a
> > single file combining SPL and full u-boot you'd have two independent
> > ones. In my case I'd build one u-boot config that fits into 96K and
> > another full 250K one. Of course the two config files could each
> > include a common base config.
...
> That's one way to do it, and makes more and more sense as the amount
> of available SRAM increases. Of course some SOCs can even set up their
> SDRAM and read entire programs in, so there are no restrictions. But
> for those with limitations, it makes sense to me to make SPL more a
> cut down build of U-Boot than a special program that pulls in #ifdefed
> code from various places.
>
> Another approach is to just have one U-Boot, but keep everything you
> need to get started in the first 96KB.
Please keep in mind that there is also a large number of boards that
boot form some boot ROM (like NOR flash), i. e. that can directly
execute _all_ U-Boot code, without need of any SPL at all.
Any changes to the design of the SPL must not have any adverse
effects on such XIP booting systems.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de
"More software projects have gone awry for lack of calendar time than
for all other causes combined."
- Fred Brooks, Jr., _The Mythical Man Month_
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
