Re: [Angstrom-devel] Status of ARM machines in OE

[Paul Sokolovsky <pmiscml@gmail.com>]

Hello Koen,

Wednesday, January 10, 2007, 4:38:49 PM, you wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1

> Paul Sokolovsky schreef:

> <snip>

>> So, what's really required is someone to physically test
>> boot on a machine, and that's enough. Not boot means upstream (hh.org)
>> kernel problem, otherwise, it works (bugs are either common or due to
>> specific kernel bug also).

> That's not true. Yesterday my h5550 didn't boot, but I got it booting by using the a
> different /boot/params and fixing the fstab.

  Yes, I know, that what I wrote to the large part is wishful thinking
at this time, but if people indeed change point of view to such
discrepancies from "we're stuck at that" to "temporary evil", it would
quickly become reality.

  As for h5000 hardships, recent bootloader talk was exactly about
that - if all or none of pocketpc's used /boot/params, there woild be much
less probability for such issues, and they would reoccur much rarely
and be fixed much quicker.

  fstab is of course more hard case - while it's very tempting to
reduce to a single standard MTD layout, it's less practical that
having single generic bootloader support (+ any number of adhoc
model-specific ones, of course).

> regards,

> Koen


-- 
Best regards,
 Paul                            mailto:pmiscml@gmail.com