From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: erik quanstrom Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 14:43:17 -0400 To: 9fans@9fans.net Message-ID: <2b4a6ce59f768eb51d6df3d9024427a6@ladd.quanstro.net> In-Reply-To: References: <2ef52570c9c6f8a5f541e1ab9465159e@brasstown.quanstro.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [9fans] ARM and u-boot Topicbox-Message-UUID: 6294553c-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > It's more than that. Many board vendors will use a secured stage 1 > bootloader that assumes U-Boot. It's probably possible to shove in a good point. what are the secure loaders assuming? > Every SoC is going to have a different process - in the end, you'll hav= e > something that will probably look quite a bit like U-Boot without any r= eal > benefit. I'd rather tilt at other windmills... that was my opinion, and i argued it pretty loudly=E2=80=94 until u-boot didn't cover my needs and i had to fix u-boot. i had to eat my words. u-boot is really terrible to work with. there is no danger of writing something that looks like u-boot. :-) but if u-boot works out of the box, i would totally agree, why not use it? but don't fall for the trap of modifying it. that's a terrible waste. instead of learning about the internals of u-boot, you could spend time learning how the hardware in hand is really set up. - erik