From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 01 Dec 2014 15:54:36 CST."
	<CAGGHmKH7yDkQF08YLshbnkh9UVoi7T4S7uZ2VKbK3763zdVzXw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1417410858.1852249.197150289.78A68333@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<cdabc05fb7b2b3a275be8dbf36624599@lilly.quanstro.net>
	<1417423412.1914203.197194673.02F8E8C7@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<CAGGHmKH7yDkQF08YLshbnkh9UVoi7T4S7uZ2VKbK3763zdVzXw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon,  1 Dec 2014 18:42:23 -0800
From: Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com>
Message-Id: <20141202024223.31A5BB827@mail.bitblocks.com>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Porting plan9
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 30fc9fba-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Mon, 01 Dec 2014 15:54:36 CST Steven Stallion <sstallion@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> FWIW, u-boot is not a net-negative at all. For SoC's it simplifies
> boot significantly - there is zero reason to eschew the functionality
> it brings.

Do you think it is worth adding support for "flattened device
tree" (a data structure that describes system hardware)?  IIRC
uboot already supports FDT.  Supposedly FDT reduces the
porting effort and more than one system may even be able to
use the same kernel (but with a different FDT).