Hi Ahmad. On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 06:21:34PM +0100, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > v1 is at <20190116174559.17416-1-a.fatoum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>. > > I tried to strip down barebox, so the first stage can be device tree > based as well. It boots up to trying to load the first stage from MMC, > where it fails. As it's very annoying to debug when only having few bytes > to spare, I am not sure if it's worth it. First stage boot are supposed to be very limited in size. I have only looked a little into this, but trying to bring the DT infrastructure in so yearly seems like overkill. If we want barebox to be more widely used for first stage booting we should IMO avoid the complexity and go for the simple platform_data based solutions. This is a little code duplication, but much easier compared to when one has to head over to at91bootstrap to figure out something. This is just my personal opinion so before deciing on anything please ask someone with more knowledge in this area. It is still on my TODO list to go through this (now updated - thanks) patchset. But Sascha gave some good feedback and I will await v3. Sam _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
