> It's more than that. Many board vendors will use a secured stage 1 > bootloader that assumes U-Boot. It's probably possible to shove in a
good point. what are the secure loaders assuming? > Every SoC is going to have a different process - in the end, you'll have > something that will probably look quite a bit like U-Boot without any real > benefit. I'd rather tilt at other windmills... that was my opinion, and i argued it pretty loudly— until u-boot didn't cover my needs and i had to fix u-boot. i had to eat my words. u-boot is really terrible to work with. there is no danger of writing something that looks like u-boot. :-) but if u-boot works out of the box, i would totally agree, why not use it? but don't fall for the trap of modifying it. that's a terrible waste. instead of learning about the internals of u-boot, you could spend time learning how the hardware in hand is really set up. - erik
