On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 06:54:54PM +0200, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:33:39 -0400, Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 06:10:06AM -0700, Richard Schmitt wrote: > > > > > Is anyone considering porting/supporting uboot for ARMv8. ?Our initial > > > investigation of boot loader support for ARMv8 indicates that the only > > > boot loader currently being targeted is UEFI. ? > > > > > > The decisions we need to make are: > > > - Do we move to UEFI on ARM? > > > - Can we leverage someone else's enablement of ARMv8? > > > - Do we provide our own enablement of ARMv8? > > > > > > Any opinions? > > > > The general push from ARM Ltd is to use UEFI. I would strongly suspect > > that there are U-Boot forks that companies that have announced they are > > doing ARMv8 chips have something as a stop-gap until they have the > > functionality they want in uEFI. > > > > I am quite open to ARMv8 support being added to U-Boot and addressing > > the concerns companies may have. Sometimes it seems like "GPLv2+" makes > > people think "Project will be moving to GPLv3, RUN AWAY!" when all it > > really means is "Project is GPLv2+, will evaluate the appropriateness of > > later versions". > > This is not specific to 64-Bit ARM support, though. GPLv2+ has been > there for very long. Aren't companies educated by now? (I am quite open > to helping spread education, anyway)
Indeed, it applies to the project as a whole. I have however, gotten some private feedback that to me says that there are companies out there afraid that because we retain our "+" we're going to switch to GPLv3 any minute, rather than keeping our options open, should some future GPL provide a compromise both developers, companies and regular consumers can live with. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
