[PATCH 3/9] Minimal S5PV210 + Tiny210 support (2nd stage only)

Alexey Galakhov agalakhov at gmail.com
Mon May 14 07:07:03 EDT 2012


On 14.05.2012 15:57, Juergen Beisert wrote:
> Hi Alexey,
> please keep the mailing list at least on CC.

Oops. Sorry. Wrong button :)

>> Using iROM to boot is generally a bad idea, but there's no alternative
>> right now.
> For you there might be no alternative right now. But for Barebox its all right 
> if only a basic support for this new CPU is available.

Even if it's not bootable?

Ok, there's better plan. Instead of adding iROM in a separate file, I'll
just call its magic address in board's lowlevel init. So this will be
for tiny210 only.

> Skip the iROM entirely in your patch series if you want to remove it later on. 
> What sense would it make to include it and then remove it again?

It depends on what one means "remove again". This may happen after a
year or so. While I think I can implement NAND quite fast, I'm not so
optimistic about MMC.

>> However, there's one bad thing: it's better to add at least one board to
>> Kconfig with the new arch.
> ?

If there are no BOARDINFO and board-y defined, barebox cannot be built.
So one cannot compile barebox with CONFIG_ARCH_something if there are no
boards utilizing it, right? How to test the compilation then? Is it Ok?


More information about the barebox mailing list