Hi Graeme, On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Graeme Russ <graeme.r...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Simon > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: >> Hi Graeme, >> >> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Graeme Russ <graeme.r...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi Simon, > >>> And we are talking about one board vendor taking a SoC and using UARTA >>> for the panic output and another board vendor deciding to use UARTB - But >>> surely these vendors will create a separate config file for their boards. >> >> Nope. There is only one u-boot.bin for all boards that use this SOC. > > And this is what I simply don't grok - Why have a single board config for > a range of boards that are obviously different?
That's the design goal - a single U-Boot binary for all boards that use a particular SOC. > > I suppose I haven't dealt with device tree and I imagine that is what this > is all about. But to me, device trees are a construct for a higher level > of operation (the OS) not the boot loader (although I get that the boot > loader can parse the device tree in order to pick up what devices are > installed and need some kind of low-level initialisation) Actually a device tree describes the hardware, and therefore should in principle be just as applicable to the boot loader. > > I think at such a low level you really have to say 'hey, these boards are > different and need a different configuration' unless you put something in > hardware that allows U-Boot to pick up on the difference without needing > to initialise _anything_ similar to what Stephen has done to pass the > debug UART info to Linux via a scratch register Well we could do that, but the config is in some sense supposed to be the device tree. We are only dealing here with a little case where there is no device tree and want to output a message. Regards, Simon > > Regards, > > Graeme _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
