From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755549AbYDUO6o (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:58:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752994AbYDUO6g (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:58:36 -0400 Received: from outbound-dub.frontbridge.com ([213.199.154.16]:47294 "EHLO outbound6-dub-R.bigfish.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752424AbYDUO6f (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:58:35 -0400 X-BigFish: VP X-MS-Exchange-Organization-Antispam-Report: OrigIP: 163.181.251.8;Service: EHS X-WSS-ID: 0JZOK94-01-Q1C-01 Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:05:46 -0600 From: Jordan Crouse To: Mitch Bradley Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , Andres Salomon , Yinghai Lu , "Eric W. Biederman" , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Joseph Fannin , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: OLPC: Add support for calling into Open Firmware Message-ID: <20080421150546.GB6354@cosmic.amd.com> References: <20080419031024.GC3503@nineveh.local> <20080418202925.b18452c5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080419092544.378664a8@ephemeral> <20080419133909.5aa6b63e@ephemeral> <86802c440804200334t5cdcd100rfc41e9b1bf379109@mail.gmail.com> <480B321B.5020802@zytor.com> <20080420135948.61bdb4c9@ephemeral> <480B8E9F.8000701@firmworks.com> <480B95B4.5030203@zytor.com> <480C0C5B.2050403@firmworks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <480C0C5B.2050403@firmworks.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Apr 2008 14:58:23.0129 (UTC) FILETIME=[2515C090:01C8A3C0] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 20/04/08 17:39 -1000, Mitch Bradley wrote: > H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> Mitch Bradley wrote: >>> >>> The x86 architecture doesn't make this problem easy. >>> >> >> [long rant about the x86 architecture] >> >> It would be more useful if you described the actual defined entry >> conditions from OpenFirmware look like, including if they are well-defined >> for all OF implementations or only for OLPC. >> >> -hpa > > Fair enough... > > To get the second subquestion out of the way: At the present time, on the > x86 architecture, "all OF implementations" and "OLPC" are effectively the > same. I am unaware of any other x86 OFW deployments in current use. There > have been some in the past, on bespoke systems such as Network Appliance > servers and at least one settop box, but those have fallen by the wayside > as those companies have shifted over to commodity PC hardware. The current > market status quo is that x86 boards are primarily designed for Windows, > and thus must run legacy BIOS, with some recent migration to EFI, neither > of which are open source in the strong sense. While I would like to see > more OFW penetration into the larger x86 market, I don't really expect it. > x86 motherboard manufacturing is becoming more and more difficult as signal > speeds increase, leading to a decline in the number of manufacturers. The > existing manufacturers depend on Windows for sales volume and their > internal procedures and working knowledge are based on legacy BIOS. /me puts on his coreboot hat This is off topic slightly, but let it be known that the coreboot project considers OFW a very valid option for x86 platforms. A kernel that worked happily with OFW would greatly encourage people to adopt it in lieu of other BIOS / firmware solutions. I return you to your previously scheduled debate. Jordan