> It's more than that. Many board vendors will use a secured stage 1good point. what are the secure loaders assuming?
> bootloader that assumes U-Boot. It's probably possible to shove in a
> Every SoC is going to have a different process - in the end, you'll havethat was my opinion, and i argued it pretty loudly—
> something that will probably look quite a bit like U-Boot without any real
> benefit. I'd rather tilt at other windmills...
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.