<!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>
<PRE>
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 09:19 -0300, Werner Almesberger wrote:
</PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">Yeah, we tried, but it just doesn't seem to be possible :-( There</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">are some alternatives, but they then lead to other problems, such</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">as chips not being available in quantity, etc. (And we've had our</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">number of surprises with that. Once bitten, ...)</FONT>
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
If you do find a chip with a small protected page i might be interested in writing the loader i have outlined.<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">will be exercised well enough. To the contrary, since this is code</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">we already use daily, it's more likely to be correct than a</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">special-purpose loader that only gets used rarely.</FONT>
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
As long as the bootstrap code reprogramming is bullet proof or you don't see the need for changing the boot code i can't see any problems with one large bootstrap.
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">You'd have to ask Harald for comments on USB (among other things,</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">he implemented DFU in u-boot), but my impression is that it's hard</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">and messy enough that nobody wants to maintain yet another stack.</FONT>
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
I looked at using USB a few years ago and decided it was too convoluted and complex. IMHO a powered Ethernet variant would have been a much better arrangement that the USB mess.<BR>
<BR>
Regards<BR>
<BR>
Simon
</BODY>
</HTML>