> > 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 should have mentioned that the vendor required a hacked version of the arm toolchain. this version of u-boot was the gift that just kept giving. - erik
