From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:13:53 -0700 From: "Mark A. Greer" To: Guennadi Liakhovetski Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] bootwrapper: Add support for the sandpoint platform Message-ID: <20060817211353.GA1402@mag.az.mvista.com> References: <20060719231725.GG3887@mag.az.mvista.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Cc: linuxppc-dev List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 10:16:16PM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, Mark A. Greer wrote: > > > This patch adds support for the Freescale Sandpoint platform > > to the bootwrapper. Hi Guennadi. > Mark, > > you put sandpoint.c and mpc10x.c under boot... I don't quite understand > your concept now: you mean this is the code needed to __boot__ sandpoint. Depends on what you mean by "__boot__". This is the code needed to prepare things--the flat dev tree in this case--so that the kernel can boot when running the DINK firmware on a sandpoint. > Ok. I can also imagine that as soon as the system is up you don't need any > further specific code - only .init* sections. But - does this mean that > every platform will now put its support flat under boot? You need to read . > Or is it a > special case? Or are there also run-time fixups that you didn't include > with this patch-series? Also _reset doesn't quite fit under boot, Yes it does. Follow exit(). > or am I misunderstanding something? Yes, you're missing the whole point of the patch series... Did you read "[PATCH 0/6] bootwrapper: arch/powerpc/boot code reorg patches"? The intent was not to add kernel support for the sanpoint. The intent was to solicit comments on a reorg of the bootwrapper code. Mark