From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: erik quanstrom Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 16:19:00 -0400 To: 9fans@9fans.net Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <49c0921258dd6aa25b0d395e45e247fa@ladd.quanstro.net> References: <2ef52570c9c6f8a5f541e1ab9465159e@brasstown.quanstro.net> <2b4a6ce59f768eb51d6df3d9024427a6@ladd.quanstro.net> <49c0921258dd6aa25b0d395e45e247fa@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: 62d2f9ea-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 should have mentioned that the vendor required a hacked version of the arm toolchain. this version of u-boot was the gift that just kept giving. - erik