From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <428C91B0.4090702@intracom.gr> Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 16:16:32 +0300 From: Pantelis Antoniou MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Wolfgang Denk References: <20050519131844.7D707C1512@atlas.denx.de> In-Reply-To: <20050519131844.7D707C1512@atlas.denx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed 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) List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 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