Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 22:45:28 +0300 From: Stanislav Sedov <stas@FreeBSD.org> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: arm@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Code review request: boards on AT91 Message-ID: <20081125224528.4395ff7e.stas@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20081125.123321.-1435626397.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <20081125220040.c8996e0b.stas@FreeBSD.org> <20081125.120523.-201316873.imp@bsdimp.com> <20081125222258.8db7b61e.stas@FreeBSD.org> <20081125.123321.-1435626397.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:33:21 -0700 (MST) "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> mentioned: > We don't universally use it. It is used in the mv code, but not in > the at91 code. The at91 boot loader just passes one variable in now, Just a matter of time:-) As I said we have the patch almost ready, and it works for us with u-boot. I'll commit it shortly. > but there's a fair number of different boot loaders today for > FreeBSD/arm. While it would be nice to mandate all the world use > uboot + /boot/loader, that's not likely going to happen. There's too > many boards out there that have redboot or some custom boot loader > that will be hard to replace... In that cases loader(8) could be used. > I guess what I'm trying to say is that the current mechanisms we're > using are all over the map, and we need to clean it up so that it is > easy to swap different types of boot loaders in. Agree. At least, for some architectures the kernel config option could be added to switch between bootloader support. It'd be hard to make this in the platform independent code... - -- Stanislav Sedov ST4096-RIPE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEARECAAYFAkksVdgACgkQK/VZk+smlYHoCwCaAiPD78tzIsVJVvNnmPIabGpg 6I0AnjZZ/Ayl2ehUsil/U6J/HfdtpI/7 =lFD4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20081125224528.4395ff7e.stas>