Hi Simon, On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > 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: >>>
> > 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. And I would love to get this back on the table - I honestly think that the initcall solution, although it had it's own set of 'problems' is a more robust approach that the current 'array of function pointers' solution. I think we now have a number of ideas (some with solid patches) that is going to make the future of the boot sequence very bright indead: - Bootgraph - Unified timer API (nanosecond would be nice) - initcall - 'pre-console' output buffer - timestamped printf() Looking forward to opening up these cans of worms again :) Regards, Graeme _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
