this week work on KBOOT

Michael 'Mickey' Lauer mickey at
Mon Jun 2 20:57:42 CEST 2008

On Monday 02 June 2008 20:03:26 Werner Almesberger wrote:
> Andy Green wrote:
> > Right, it's a "what first" question for xiangfu.
> I wonder if he should get sidetracked by u-boot and the partitioning
> concept in the first place, particularly since there's extremely little
> to do in terms of implementation.
> Specifically, I'd see the following items:
> - add a hard-coded partition table to the default environment
> - for good measure, disable the dynpart and dynenv commands
> - use a hardcoded offset for the environment instead
> - remove dynpart and friends from DM1
> - add a "do we have enough non-bad blocks ?" test to DMx (*)
> - update the documentation :-)
> - consider simplifying the "FINAL" step
> So most of the real work would be in DMx, not in u-boot proper.
> (*) Using something like
> > It just seems we get teleported to a better win by reducing the
> > bootloader to the minimum first.
> Can we phrase this as "not doing weird things in our architecture" ? ;-)
> "Reducing the boot loader" sounds like a great waste of time on u-boot.
> For kboot, I'd rather see a simple loader written from scratch. Where
> we decide to use u-boot to speed up development, it should already do
> what we need. Otherwise, this means just sinking more resources into
> u-boot.
> > We have to differentiate between possible GTA01/02 reformat and GTA03
> > usage.  All I am worrying about is GTA03.

I don't want to talk too much about future products, but I would vote against 
going away from NAND for 03 -- there's too many business risks. 03 is about 
evolution. 04 is revolution.


More information about the openmoko-kernel mailing list