[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: why not kernel images and other tools?

In message <[🔎] 20040423140156.4BB86C109F@atlas.denx.de>
          Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de> wrote:

> There are not many boot loaders that support such  a  wide  range  of
> different architectures (PowerPC, ARM, MIPS, ColdFire, NIOS, ...). At
> the  moment  U-Boot  comes  with default configurations for about 200
> different board, including 29 ARM boards (not counting  boards  which
> come in different configurations).

I'm aware of that, as I think most of us are, but my point that it's not
appropriate for all circumstances remains.  As such, we have to contend
with multiple bootloaders.

> You wrote: "There might be a call for a monolithic ARM boolloader". I
> just wanted to point out that U-Boot has been successfully in use for
> exactly this purpose for a long, long time.

No, you misquoted me.  The phrase was "ARM bootloader _package_". which
is most certainly what I meant, particularly in reply to Wookey's point
of removing packages that are only in use on a few systems.

Peter Naulls - peter@chocky.org        | http://www.chocky.org/
RISC OS C Programming                  | http://www.riscos.info/

Reply to: