Hi, 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? Regards, Alex _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
