Hi!
I know that mainline U-Boot SPL is quite far from working on socfpga... but would like to ask, what is the status of U-Boot proper. That should work on socfpga, right? Or are there some pieces missing?
I tried
commit 173d294b94cfec10063a5be40934d6d8fb7981ce Merge: 33b0f7b 870e0bd Author: Tom Rini trini@ti.com Date: Tue May 6 14:55:45 2014 -0400
Merge branch 'serial' of git://www.denx.de/git/u-boot-microblazeand it just dies with no output.
I'd really like to get something close to mainline working, so that I can generate patches etc.
The missing piece here is the SDRAM driver. This is a big piece as U-boot require the SDRAM to run. As of now, I am enhancing the existing SDRAM drivers to ensure its compliance with the coding standard.
I know about missing SDRAM driver, but that is in u-boot-spl, not u-boot (right?). I know u-boot-spl is not feasible right now, but I'd like to get at least u-boot proper to work. Is that something else that is known to be missing?
But nevertheless, it poses another challenge when come to license. The driver is currently licensed under BSD-3 clause. Wonder can we upstream BSD-3 clause code? Any advise would be appreciated.
So: You are copyright holders, you can change the license. (Right?)
Second, it seems that BSD-3 clause is actually GPL-compatible:
Best regards, Pavel
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
Modified BSD license (#ModifiedBSD) This is the original BSD license, modified by removal of the advertising clause. It is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL.
This license is sometimes referred to as the 3-clause BSD license.
The modified BSD license is not bad, as lax permissive licenses go, though the Apache 2.0 license is preferable. However, it is risky to recommend use of “the BSD license”, even for special cases such as small programs, because confusion could easily occur and lead to use of the flawed original BSD license. To avoid this risk, you can suggest the X11 license instead. The X11 license and the modified revised BSD license are more or less equivalent.
However, the Apache 2.0 license is better for substantial programs, since it prevents patent treachery.