On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 03:01:09 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! Hi!
> > > > > > One of the nice thing of U-Boot over SPL is the console support > > > > > > and > > > > > > ability to troubleshoot. > > > > > > This is possible with Arria 10 SoC as we have larger OCRAM (256kB > > > > > > vs CV > > > > > > SoC 64kB). > > > > > > > > > > OK, that's not really the point here -- the point is, if you > > > > > compile enough > > > > > features into U-Boot, it will be bigger than those 256k. What will > > > > > you do > > > > > then ? > > > > > > > > You'll compile small U-Boot, and use it to load larger U-Boot, as he > > > > said in the mark "HERE" above. > > > > > > > > And yes, I guess that makes sense, and yes, we should finally make > > > > loading U-Boot from U-Boot oficially supported, at least on Socfpga. > > > > > > Yup, you got it :) > > > Thanks > > > > So why exactly don't we use SPL instead ? The purpose of SPL is to do > > exactly this without the extra cruft which is part of U-Boot and the > > unnecessary overhead of the full U-Boot. And you don't need to hack > > U-Boot to support loading U-Boot. > > You don't need to hack anything, it just works today. > > And yes, U-Boot is easier to work with, because it has commandline, > etc. I do not necessarily need this overhead. > In ideal world, U-Boot SPL would disappear. You'd just compile small > "U-Boot 1" and bigger "U-Boot 2". Lets get there... No need for > arbitrary limitations like "Full U-Boot can't initialize sdram" or > "U-Boot SPL can't have command line". This can be done by converging SPL to normal U-Boot, but that's not gonna happen instantaneously. Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
