85xx FDT updates?

[Eugene Surovegin]

On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 11:55:49AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> 
> On Apr 25, 2006, at 11:49 AM, Dan Malek wrote:
> 
> >
> >On Apr 25, 2006, at 3:49 AM, Eugene Surovegin wrote:
> >
> >>It seems some people here lost touch with reality - embedded Linux is
> >>mostly run on custom hardware, not on evaluation boards.
> >
> >This is the reason I usually mention such things.  While we all
> >want to see the new features, we have to be sensitive to the
> >real world product deployment of Linux.  While your world
> >may be a few evaluation boards that allow you to update
> >software many times a day, the real world products can't
> >afford to do that.  From my own experience, I can tell you
> >that none of the deployed systems I've worked on will
> >ever update U-Boot.  They consider this a sacred piece of
> >software such that is all else fails they can recover a
> >system remotely using U-Boot commands.  They won't
> >risk updating U-Boot in case it fails.  Making Linux dependent
> >on a particular, updated, version of U-Boot just isn't going
> >to work in most deployed systems.  Or worse, making
> >Linux dependent on U-Boot isn't necessarily popular
> >either.  For various reasons, especially when replacing
> >legacy software, some custom boot rom is often the
> >only choice.
> 
> I understand this, however these systems are not in the kernel tree  
> and thus we can only do so much for them.  I agree a shim between a  
> non-flat dev tree aware u-boot and kernel would be a good thing.   
> However, I don't see that as something I have to produce as a board  
> maintainer if I can give you and updated u-boot to use.

Kumar, you are missing our point. Let's say I packaged Motorola eval 
board and sold it as my product. So, you have this board in the tree 
but I cannot update firmware on this board. What you suggest I have to 
do so my customer can run new kernel on it? Recall the board or fly 
to the customer site with Abatron? This is just ridiculous.

-- 
Eugene