<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:50 PM, lkcl luke <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:luke.leighton@gmail.com">luke.leighton@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Tom Cubie <<a href="mailto:mr.hipboi@gmail.com">mr.hipboi@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Yes, the work is on b) and i am working on it.<br>
<br>
</div> great stuff.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> We already have a) and c).<br>
> I have a question, is b) and c) one binary file or two. I mean is u-boo spl<br>
> is<br>
> part of the u-boot.bin or we then have u-boot.bin and u-boot-spl.bin.<br>
<br>
</div> tom, u-boot is... basically... an abomination that would be best if<br>
it had never existed. it is a dog's dinner mixture of bits of libc,<br>
application-space code and random snippets of out-of-date linux kernel<br>
source code. it even requires special versions of the gcc compiler<br>
that are spec'd to not link with the standard c runtime.<br><br></blockquote><div> </div><div>Agreed about uboot. Just run Linux.</div><div> </div></div>In the boot process on the wiki, what is the point of the boot.axf step? Could we just run Linux from boot1? (or even boot0?).<div>
<br></div><div>Justin</div><div><br><div><br></div><div><br></div></div>