From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org
Subject: Re: Going from 2.2.12 to 2.2.17pre10
References: <Pine.HPX.4.10.10007061912350.21326-100000@gra-ux1.iram.es> <qp66qji2pq.fsf@erbium.epact.se> <20000708162915.A11060@cx258813-a.chnd1.az.home.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.108)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
From: Michael Lundkvist <ml@epact.se>
Date: 09 Jul 2000 08:12:26 +0200
In-Reply-To: Matt Porter's message of "Sat, 8 Jul 2000 16:29:15 -0700"
Message-ID: <qpu2dz6ddh.fsf@erbium.epact.se>
Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org
List-Id: <linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org>


Matt Porter <mmporter@home.com> writes:

>
> > Nope. I think I'll go for Bugboot. Ramix also talked about the
> > possibility of modifying PPCBug to add support for the Ramix 233.
>
> I really have to recommend against that.  Once Ramix sees the icky PPCBUG
> code they will hate as much as I do.  I gave well documented changes to
> the PPCBUG guys so that BUGBOOT wasn't needed to boot a kernel from
> FLASH on a PowerPlus board but they haven't incorporated those changes
> after a full year now. :)
>

Getting those changes into PPCBUG would be great.

How board specific is the residual data that Bugboot needs?

Would it be possible to make one image for 2300 cards and one for 2400
cards or does memory size affect the residual data?

/Micke

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/