From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: erik quanstrom Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 16:13:05 -0400 To: 9fans@9fans.net Message-ID: <49c0921258dd6aa25b0d395e45e247fa@ladd.quanstro.net> In-Reply-To: References: <2ef52570c9c6f8a5f541e1ab9465159e@brasstown.quanstro.net> <2b4a6ce59f768eb51d6df3d9024427a6@ladd.quanstro.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] ARM and u-boot Topicbox-Message-UUID: 62ca7de2-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > 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