Re: Patches for REALLY TINY 386 kernels

[Uwe Hermann <uwe@hermann-uwe.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1322 bytes --]

On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 03:41:02PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 10:10:43PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > 
> > I was waiting for someone to make that "point" ...
> > 
> > > 
> > > Every byte you can shave off the compressed kernel image is another
> > > byte you can use for userspace on your FLASH.
> > 
> > Now let's see if that 1MB 386 contains any flash at all. Guesses?  
> 
> I've certainly worked on such devices. I expect there are more of them
> still in service, than, say, Voyagers.
> 
> I haven't looked at whether this CPUID stuff is worth the trouble, I'm
> just responding to your argument about init code. Init code is
> definitely not free. It takes up storage space, which can be extremely
> valuable.

Ack.

Some people are putting Linux kernels in the "BIOS" (i.e. ROM chip) when
using LinuxBIOS (www.linuxbios.org). It _does_ make a lot of difference
there how big the kernel is. At the moment you can't do that with
anything smaller than a 1 MB chip. But if people could use 512 KB chips
because the kernel is small enough that would sure be a great thing.

In such scenarios every single byte matters.


Uwe.
-- 
http://www.hermann-uwe.de  | http://www.holsham-traders.de
http://www.crazy-hacks.org | http://www.unmaintained-free-software.org

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]