From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from dell-paw-3.cambridge.redhat.com ([195.224.55.237] helo=passion.cambridge.redhat.com) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 18NtDL-0003cY-00 for ; Mon, 16 Dec 2002 11:15:11 +0000 From: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: <20021216095652.D4D24C6139@atlas.denx.de> References: <20021216095652.D4D24C6139@atlas.denx.de> To: Wolfgang Denk Cc: Paul Nash , "Linux-MTD (E-mail)" Subject: Re: Intel sez: Synchronous Flash and XIP is the future -- thoughts? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 11:45:49 +0000 Message-ID: <18190.1040039149@passion.cambridge.redhat.com> Sender: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: wd@denx.de said: > Running the kernel XIP is not so insane. It can help to reduce boot > time. We still more than 3 seconds from power-on to application > start, which is not so bad, but still too much in some cases; > avoiding the memcpy() of some 2 MB of data is kind of attractive > then... That's true, although even if you have the kernel on a separate flash chip to which you don't ever write, it does cost you later because you then run from flash which is slower than RAM. I wonder if we could copy the kernel from flash to RAM at runtime and fix up the page tables as we go, to get the best of both worlds? -- dwmw2