From: Pantelis Antoniou <panto@intracom.gr>
To: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
Cc: linuxppc64-dev@ozlabs.org, linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org,
u-boot-users@lists.sourceforge.net, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [U-Boot-Users] RFC: Booting the Linux/ppc64 kernel without Open Firmware HOWTO (#2)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 16:16:32 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <428C91B0.4090702@intracom.gr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050519131844.7D707C1512@atlas.denx.de>
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Ben,
>
> in message <1116478614.918.75.camel@gaston> you wrote:
>
>>And here is a second draft with more infos.
>>
>> Booting the Linux/ppc64 kernel without Open Firmware
>
>
> Thanks a lot for taking the initiative to come to an agreement about
> the kernel boot interface.
>
> I have some concerns about the memory foot print and increased boot
> time that will result from the proposed solution. There are many
> embedded systems where resources are tight and requirements are aven
> tighter. It would be probably a good idea to also ask for feedback
> from these folks - for example by posting your RFC on the celinux-dev
> mailing list.
>
> But my biggest concern is that we should try to come up with a
> solution that has a wider acceptance. Especially from the U-Boot
> point of view it is not exactly nice that each of PowerPC, ARM and
> MIPS use their very own, completely incompatible way of passing in-
> formation from the boot loader to the kernel.
>
> As is, your proposal will add just another incompatible way of doing
> the same thing (of course we will have to stay backward compatible
> with U-Boot to allow booting older kernels, too).
>
>
> Why don't we try to come up with a solution that is acceptable to the
> other architectures as well?
>
> Maybe you want to post the RFC to lkml, or at least to the
> linux-arm-kernel and linux-mips mailing lists?
>
I'm really interested in having this discussion.
I'm forced to maintain my own u-boot based solution for doing this and
I'd be very interested in whatever gets chosen.
IMHO the current mess is considerable, and at this point I wouldn't
really care if the resulting solution is less than optimal, as long
as there is one.
> Best regards,
>
> Wolfgang Denk
>
Regards
Pantelis
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Pantelis Antoniou <panto@intracom.gr>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot-Users] RFC: Booting the Linux/ppc64 kernel without Open Firmware HOWTO (#2)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 16:16:32 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <428C91B0.4090702@intracom.gr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050519131844.7D707C1512@atlas.denx.de>
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Ben,
>
> in message <1116478614.918.75.camel@gaston> you wrote:
>
>>And here is a second draft with more infos.
>>
>> Booting the Linux/ppc64 kernel without Open Firmware
>
>
> Thanks a lot for taking the initiative to come to an agreement about
> the kernel boot interface.
>
> I have some concerns about the memory foot print and increased boot
> time that will result from the proposed solution. There are many
> embedded systems where resources are tight and requirements are aven
> tighter. It would be probably a good idea to also ask for feedback
> from these folks - for example by posting your RFC on the celinux-dev
> mailing list.
>
> But my biggest concern is that we should try to come up with a
> solution that has a wider acceptance. Especially from the U-Boot
> point of view it is not exactly nice that each of PowerPC, ARM and
> MIPS use their very own, completely incompatible way of passing in-
> formation from the boot loader to the kernel.
>
> As is, your proposal will add just another incompatible way of doing
> the same thing (of course we will have to stay backward compatible
> with U-Boot to allow booting older kernels, too).
>
>
> Why don't we try to come up with a solution that is acceptable to the
> other architectures as well?
>
> Maybe you want to post the RFC to lkml, or at least to the
> linux-arm-kernel and linux-mips mailing lists?
>
I'm really interested in having this discussion.
I'm forced to maintain my own u-boot based solution for doing this and
I'd be very interested in whatever gets chosen.
IMHO the current mess is considerable, and at this point I wouldn't
really care if the resulting solution is less than optimal, as long
as there is one.
> Best regards,
>
> Wolfgang Denk
>
Regards
Pantelis
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-05-19 13:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-05-18 7:09 [U-Boot-Users] RFC: Booting the Linux/ppc64 kernel without Open Firmware HOWTO Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2005-05-18 8:12 ` Marius Groeger
2005-05-18 23:11 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2005-05-19 9:52 ` Marius Groeger
2005-05-19 10:22 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2005-05-19 13:18 ` Wolfgang Denk
2005-05-19 19:37 ` Linas Vepstas
2005-05-19 20:18 ` Dan Malek
2005-05-19 22:33 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2005-05-19 23:20 ` Wolfgang Denk
2005-05-19 23:42 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2005-05-20 3:11 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2005-05-20 7:11 ` Marius Groeger
2005-05-20 7:23 ` David Gibson
2005-05-20 7:27 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2005-05-18 23:32 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2005-05-19 4:56 ` [U-Boot-Users] RFC: Booting the Linux/ppc64 kernel without Open Firmware HOWTO (#2) Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2005-05-19 7:46 ` [U-Boot-Users] " Arnd Bergmann
2005-05-19 8:09 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2005-05-19 16:24 ` Segher Boessenkool
2005-05-19 13:18 ` [U-Boot-Users] " Wolfgang Denk
2005-05-19 13:18 ` Wolfgang Denk
2005-05-19 13:16 ` Pantelis Antoniou [this message]
2005-05-19 13:16 ` Pantelis Antoniou
2005-05-19 22:20 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2005-05-19 22:20 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2005-05-19 23:14 ` Wolfgang Denk
2005-05-19 23:14 ` Wolfgang Denk
2005-05-19 23:28 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2005-05-19 23:28 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2005-05-20 6:44 ` Stefan Nickl
2005-05-20 6:44 ` Stefan Nickl
2005-05-20 3:51 ` Hollis Blanchard
2005-05-20 3:51 ` Hollis Blanchard
2005-05-20 6:59 ` Wolfgang Denk
2005-05-20 6:59 ` Wolfgang Denk
2005-05-20 4:24 ` Paul Mackerras
2005-05-20 4:24 ` Paul Mackerras
2005-05-20 4:28 ` Paul Mackerras
2005-05-20 4:28 ` Paul Mackerras
2005-05-20 4:26 ` [U-Boot-Users] " Hollis Blanchard
2005-05-20 5:04 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=428C91B0.4090702@intracom.gr \
--to=panto@intracom.gr \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org \
--cc=linuxppc64-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=u-boot-users@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=wd@denx.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.