Hi Andrew, On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 5:40 AM, Andrew Murray <amur...@theiet.org> wrote: > On 1 September 2011 00:53, Andrew Murray <amur...@theiet.org> wrote: >> >> > >> > I will assume that we have a microsecond timer, update my patch and >> > resubmit so you can take a look and see what you think. Hopefully we >> > can unify this, your patch and the boot_progress stuff. >> >> Excellent! OK, well I will await the patch, read up on the original >> intentions and we can go from there. I'll look forward to making UBoot >> more boot time friendly. Good night. > > I've updated my patches based on your feedback. I guess the next step is to > see how > to integrate with the bootstage work. > Andrew Murray
Thanks for the patch set. I have a few general comments. - textbase should come from System.map also - it is hard coded at present - Perl is ick, but it was good because it reminded me of why I am happier in Python :-) - Patch 4 didn't apply cleanly on master - Should add to hush parser also - Perl script could use some error checking. I had a bit of fun debugging it as it silent failed - The resulting image was very long and I had to zoom in a lot to see any text. Perhaps increase font size a lot so you can see the timeline and function names? - You should use do_div for the 64-bit division I think - I think the mention of CONFIG_BOOT_TIME should be CONFIG_BOOT_TRACE This patch touches on Graeme's initcall patch. If board_init_r were just a list of function pointers then your patch would be easier! Not much we can do about that at this stage, and I think your solution is reasonable. Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
