> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Lubomir Popov <lpo...@mm-sol.com> wrote: >> Well, I needed it when bringing up the board ;) - to validate the >> supplies, clocks, etc. Right, this function should be embraced within a >> #ifdef CONFIG_PALSMAS_AUDPWR and not compile in the general case (my >> code >> calling it is #ifdef-ed anyway). > Right, and you need u-boot modified to do validation? I think either > such code should stay out of tree, or be validated by expicit i2c > commands (which already is supported) OR tested by virtual regulator > consumer in linux ;) > > I dont think we should make u-boot an OS. just my 2 cents. my rule of > thumb is: if it is not needed for boot, do it elsewhere other than > bootloader. Yes, TI has omapboot, just a bootloader. I think that U-Boot, on the other hand, has become a quite powerfull tool, with a lot of useful functionality, at least for me as a hardware guy. But of course, if the community thinks of it as of a bootloader only, I give up. ;) > Regards, > NM > Best regards, Lubo
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
