trini at kernel.crashing.org
Thu Nov 13 02:53:33 EST 2003
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 08:49:30AM -0700, Gary Thomas wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 08:18, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 01:34:57AM +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > [snip]*
> > > * Does it make sense to add a "Board uses UBoot" config option to
> > > individual boards? [BTW: the name is "U-Boot".] If we do something
> > > like this (which I'd appreciate) we should do it right - there
> > > might be some other boards that use this, too.
> > My question is, is it possible to support both U-Boot and $(VENDOR
> > FIRMWARE) in the same build? If possible I'd like to avoid adding a
> > question for any type of firmware or a define_bool based on board
> > selection. I think we allow for this on Sandpoints, so
> Actually, I don't think it's possible to handle this in a general way.
> In particular, I'd also like to see a "Uses RedBoot" option, as the
> booting process there is different from U-Boot, PPCBug, OF, ... Sadly,
> there is no real common ground and this truly is a target [board]
>From what I recall of how this worked for U-Boot vs in-kernel wrapper
was that the only thing the kernel cared about was how a data structure
was passed in, so we just checked to see if it was one or the other and
used whatever we had.
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
More information about the Linuxppc-dev