From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932452Ab1ACSGy (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jan 2011 13:06:54 -0500 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:6604 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932368Ab1ACSGx (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jan 2011 13:06:53 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,267,1291622400"; d="scan'208";a="874033591" Message-ID: <4D22103C.2080705@linux.intel.com> Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:06:52 -0800 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Organization: Intel Open Source Technology Center User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101209 Fedora/3.1.7-0.35.b3pre.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grant Likely CC: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sodaville@linutronix.de, Rob Landley , devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [sodaville] [PATCH 02/11] x86: Add device tree support References: <1290706801-7323-1-git-send-email-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <1290706801-7323-3-git-send-email-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <1290807736.32570.143.camel@pasglop> <20101128134907.GA30784@www.tglx.de> <20101230082654.GB11721@angua.secretlab.ca> <4D21F3DB.90504@linux.intel.com> <4D21F718.8010600@linux.intel.com> <20110103175254.GD2522@angua.secretlab.ca> In-Reply-To: <20110103175254.GD2522@angua.secretlab.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 01/03/2011 09:52 AM, Grant Likely wrote: > > I think we've got an impedance mismatch. > > The whole point of the ppc boot wrapper, and the kind of boot wrapper > that I'm talking about here, is that it becomes part of the kernel > image and is *not* part of firmware. ie. an executable wrapper which > carries the kernel as it's payload. I'm wary too of depending of > firmware to get things right because it can be so painful to change. > The problem with that kind of boot wrapper is that they are per-architecture, increasing the differences between architectures needlessly, and they are often implemented very poorly. As such, it's nice to have an ultimate fallback that doesn't depend on anything outside ours -- the kernel community's -- control. -hpa