Re: [9fans] ARM and u-boot

[erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>]

> Really? I've had very little problem with modifying U-Boot - the code base
> is fairly common for most Linux-like projects. The code was consistent, and
> well documented. As far as setting up the hardware, it's certainly
> interesting, but of small utility in the grand scheme of things.

perhaps this is vendor (or even part) specific, and i am falsely generalizing.

the vendor code i was dealing with was massive, poorly written, undocumented,
and #ifdef hell.  flashing uboot took special tools (and 15 minutes
connected to a windows laptop), so the normal trick of printing to
see what code gets run was not easy.

> I think it's important to remember that U-Boot (and many other projects)
> all came into being out of necessity. As engineers (and hobbyists to some
> degree) we all tend to suffer from NIH. Decisions that some see as
> "mistakes" usually have a good reason for coming to being. Exitus acta
> probat, I suppose.

existance is not proof of necessity.

- erik