Re: [U-Boot-Users] U-Boot-NG ?

On 7/4/07, Stefan Roese sr@denx.de wrote:

Don't get me wrong. I generally like this 2 stage approach. For example it fits the NAND booting support (see nand_spl/*) where a small (4k on 4xx) first stage loader is needed. I'm just a little hesitant about dropping the full featured printf in early boot stages.

Then let's defer that discussion. I'd like to drop printf; but there are some pretty light printf implementations out there. Or, we could easily use a cutdown printf which only supports %i and %x if need be.

Cheers, g.