<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.14.1">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
Just had a further thought about what to do if the main bootstrap loader gets trashed that maybe easier to implement. Rather than a stage 1 bootstrap loader looking to the USB interface for a replacement how about looking on the SD card?<BR>
<BR>
Simon<BR>
<BR>
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 01:58 -0300, Werner Almesberger wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">Simon Matthews wrote:</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> It seems to me as someone who designs and makes embedded devices (mainly</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> using the Freescale MC9S12 processors) that you need another lower level</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> bootstrap loader that is small,</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">Ah yes, we've been through that idea as well :-)</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">We rejected it, because we don't want to have yet more code</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">duplicating functionality found elsewhere to maintain. Besides, it</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">wouldn't be all that trivial, given that we don't have any "simple"</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">interfaces. (Anything that needs a debug board or other fancy</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">adapters doesn't count.)</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">Also, there really isn't much difference between a few protected</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">bytes or hundreds of protected kilobytes. We need an extra chip</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">anyway, and if we want something reasonably small and modern, it'll</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">have plenty of space. Thus there's no penalty in using it.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">But yes, the "small loader" approach works well enough in other</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">contexts. I've used it myself.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">- Werner</FONT>
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>