> Really? I've had very little problem with modifying U-Boot - the code base > is fairly common for most Linux-like projects. The code was consistent, and > well documented. As far as setting up the hardware, it's certainly > interesting, but of small utility in the grand scheme of things.
perhaps this is vendor (or even part) specific, and i am falsely generalizing. the vendor code i was dealing with was massive, poorly written, undocumented, and #ifdef hell. flashing uboot took special tools (and 15 minutes connected to a windows laptop), so the normal trick of printing to see what code gets run was not easy. > I think it's important to remember that U-Boot (and many other projects) > all came into being out of necessity. As engineers (and hobbyists to some > degree) we all tend to suffer from NIH. Decisions that some see as > "mistakes" usually have a good reason for coming to being. Exitus acta > probat, I suppose. existance is not proof of necessity. - erik
