Q about bootstrap support for at91sam92* boards and proposal for retirement

[Sam Ravnborg]

Hi Ahmad,

> > I have the code locally - but this time I will not have it posted before
> > it is tested.
> > 
> > Then I cloned the latest at91bootstrap - but they no longer support old
> > at91sam92xx CPUs.
> > So it was time to enable bootstrap support for at91sam9263.
> > 
> > In the past I had something working, but alas no luck this time.
> > 
> > Can anyone (Ahmad?) help me a little how to get the bootstrap
> > functionality working on the at91sam9263?
> > 
> > I do not expect patches, but I hope for something that can point me in
> > the right way to do it.
> > 
> > I have skov-arm9cpu boards (plenty - as they are mostly retired by SKOV)
> > and one at91sam9263ek where I can test.
> 
> The skov-arm9cpu looks like it already runs first stage without at91bootstrap?
> So the issue is only with at91sam9263ek?

For the moment my focus is on the skov-arm9cpu - and here bootstrap is
not (yet) functional. But I think with all the good feedback from you
and Oleksij I should manage. Thanks for the replies!

> > We see very little interest in at91sam92* boards and we could decide
> > to retire all the boards that are not updated to multi-image.
> 
> As long as it works, I guess most people don't see a reason make interest
> publicly known.
> 
> > This could simplify things - and if there is interest the missing boards
> > can be brought back to life provided they are updated to multi image.
> > Any comments on this?
> 
> I have only worked on SAMA5D3 and SAMA5D2. Of course, I'd like to see
> board code in AT91 replaced with DT-enabled/multi-image-compatible code,
> but I don't think it will happen. I don't think the maintenance burden
> is high, so I'd just leave it as is. If it bitrots and people complain,
> we can nudge them into the right direction.

OK, you are right that if it just works no reason to touch it.
I will do the patches alongside the current codebase then.

	Sam