6 ms·
I don't get the "1/10 size of U-Boot" argument. As it can only boot 3 RISC-V64 boards via TFTP, it also has less than 1/10 of the features and supported hardwar
by ReleaseCandidat 2y ago
I don't get the "1/10 size of U-Boot" argument. As it can only boot 3 RISC-V64 boards via TFTP, it also has less than 1/10 of the features and supported hardware of U-Boot. https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot
- Z0QinrgF 2y ago[dead]
- Arnavion 2y agoSupported hardware doesn't matter because they're comparing the compiled binary size, not source code size. The u-boot binary you'd compile would also only have the stuff relevant to that particular hardware compiled-in. If you don't need the other features of u-boot that this doesn't have, it makes sense to count the lower binary size and runtime memory usage as an advantage. That said, they compared it to "an example U-boot binary", which sounds like they probably didn't tweak the bajillion config options u-boot has to produce one with an equivalent feature set to theirs, which would've been a fairer comparison for sure.