Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 11:05:23 +0200 From: Emmanuel Vadot <manu@bidouilliste.com> To: Milan Obuch <freebsd-arm@dino.sk> Cc: freebsd-arm <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org>, Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Orange Pi One Message-ID: <20160422110523.3ef982fcea334eb84d64e8ac@bidouilliste.com> In-Reply-To: <20160422075804.4d87304d@zeta.dino.sk> References: <20160413232414.3a37907e@zeta.dino.sk> <20160414062820.7b907ba9@X220.alogt.com> <20160414064405.202e4eef@zeta.dino.sk> <CABx9NuQWatjAhA1oL8EtUbv5kSbG8qX-KB%2BGBr9PTqVs4fnMNg@mail.gmail.com> <20160418094916.10dc9ae8@zeta.dino.sk> <20160418174918.33d3d19e4105eb737d17b122@bidouilliste.com> <CABx9NuQaFEuZmDtJ=Rie5XC3iQDqTEBX6ZRiWxNfEa_BomTUcA@mail.gmail.com> <20160418210108.4047c526@zeta.dino.sk> <20160419092012.0ad4ad2d@zeta.dino.sk> <20160419093408.2f6d8d6472b09298f1e08ecb@bidouilliste.com> <20160419095358.351c74b3@zeta.dino.sk> <1461075584.1232.13.camel@freebsd.org> <20160419170932.3fe2b709@zeta.dino.sk> <20160421220125.00286858@zeta.dino.sk> <20160421224541.daec4614d2e5c88959a3d8e2@bidouilliste.com> <1461272263.1191.23.camel@freebsd.org> <20160421231326.1bf9a11f@zeta.dino.sk> <1461276209.1191.26.camel@freebsd.org> <CABx9NuRK3EXbQNTviBcZ_AgKQuuAsmvTjwMKpvO5S%2Bi8e57ppg@mail.gmail.com> <20160422075804.4d87304d@zeta.dino.sk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 07:58:04 +0200 Milan Obuch <freebsd-arm@dino.sk> wrote: > Just to explain better what I wrote and why: > > - what Emmanuel wrote sounds to me like 'if it does not have netboot > ability it is worthless' and thus should be not made public (maybe > not correct undestanding, somewhat exaggerated etc.) > > - this is something I am opposed to - even u-boot supporting only boot > from SD is much much better than no u-boot at all. At least if you > *really* need netboot functionality you have something working to > base your work on. > > - I do not feel netbooting is not usefull, it can help tremendously > when you can't easily swap boot media, imagine MMC soldered on > board... but in this particular case, I mean developing for Orange Pi > One board, it is only *convenience* thing, not hard *requirement* > > I hope I clarified my position with this and no flame war will arise :) > Actually I have an idea where should I (or someone more motivated than > I in this functionality) begin looking for solution of this problem, it > is a bit deeper in uboot I would like to go to for now. > > Do we agree it is still worth publishing/submitting to ports tree even > with some missing functionality? At least it could be documented there > and that's it. > This is not really what I meant. Currently all the allwinner uboot port depend on one master (cubieboard) and there is no reason for this to change because then we will have multiple copies of the patches etc ... The u-boot-cubieboard port is tied to one u-boot version (2015.04), for some board we need to update this but, as said before, u-boot > 2015.04 for allwinner cannot be compiled with api net support. We cannot break existing build that use the u-boot net api functionality. That's why I have (for now) my own ports. What I really need to do is to definitivelly fix this uboot api net problem. -- Emmanuel Vadot <manu@bidouilliste.com>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160422110523.3ef982fcea334eb84d64e8ac>