From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: U-Boot and kernel 2.6 From: Kenneth Johansson To: Mark Chambers Cc: "linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org" In-Reply-To: <002a01c44fc9$201dc820$0301a8c0@chuck2> References: <20040611140919.84651C109F@atlas.denx.de> <40C9BED6.3010809@intracom.gr> <1086964452.15845.1308.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> <002a01c44fc9$201dc820$0301a8c0@chuck2> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1086972539.4640.65.camel@spawn.uab.ericsson.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:48:59 +0200 Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 17:31, Mark Chambers wrote: > > > Yeah, having the bi_recs interface actually working > > > would be ideal, but at the present time nothing is > > > working and as AFAIK no-one is working on it. > > > > So we should offer some gentle encouragement. Like refusing to accept > > any further modifications to include/asm-ppc/ppcboot.h. > > > > Here's another idea - how about XML? That would be two steps forward, IMO, > instead of just going from one magic structure to another. Well XML of all things must be magic considering that it automatically solves all problems all the time. > As to just trashing bd_t, does that mean users have to upgrade their > bootloader to use newer kernels, and could not switch back easily if > problems arose? Perhaps the kernel could identify whether the pointer is to > a bd_t or something else and handle it automatically? Don't worry this will never change the problem is not creating a big enough itch so nobody will do anything (again). ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/