On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de wrote:
Dear John Rigby,
In message BANLkTi=um9HTWdpWeee+Y1FZ2w4Y=QMOsA@mail.gmail.com you wrote:
So Wolfgang, let's assume that Fastboot could coexist with and share code with the DFU implementation. Would that be more acceptable? Or
It is always nice if features can share common code, but here this is actually completely unrelated to the question I raised.
is any effort to get Fastboot into mainline just a waste of time?
The basic rule is that we accept what is useful for some (even if a few), unless it hurts others (including maintainers).
What additional info is needed to answer that question?
I wrote this in my initial posting to the Linaro list, and explicitly pointed you to it before, see http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.linaro.devel/3823/focus=3842 and especially http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/98145/focus=98283
I don't want to talk about code before we have heard anything about the design. This may be a trivial thing for you after having used this for some amount of time, but please consider the mental welfare of the persons who never heard about this before, and who will probably have to maintain the code after you.
Ok, I had already read both of those posts and when I read "design" I was thinking that Android Fastboot exists and the feature list is already set as is the wire protocol, so I don't see that we have a lot of flexibility in those areas. The only design I see that is up for definition is how it can be implemented in U-Boot, that was why I brought up sharing with DFU.
I will follow up in a separate email with summary design docs of what fastboot is including what the wire protocol is and what services it needs from the environment it is running in. Along with this I will have pointers to more detailed docs.
Does that sound reasonable?
Thanks for your patience, John