On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 7:07 PM Robbie Harwood <rharw...@redhat.com> wrote: > > John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de> writes: > > > On 11/16/21 17:48, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > > > > I work a commercial Linux vendor myself, but I find it a bit frustrating > > when some people think Linux development should care about commercial use > > cases only. > > This is a mischaracterization of what I said - I didn't mention anything > about use cases, commercial or otherwise. My statement was that we > shouldn't be bound by behavior on retro hardware that we can't test. If > you're willing and able to test them, that's great and I'll go be quiet.
I'll be able to test in O(2 weeks) if nobody gets to it earlier. Also my suggestion if this breaks powermacs isn't to kill the patch altogether but to switch powerpc to choose linking address at mkimage time like we already do on ARM. This would be little effort as most code is already there and I can do it in an hour or less. It seems that the lowest amount of RAM on powermacs is 32 MiB. However at least 64 MiB seems to be more typical. My two models have 384 MiB (powermac G3) and 512 MiB (powerbook G4). With 128 MiB or more, loading at 2MiB or 8 MiB shouldn't be much of a difference probably (still needs to be tested). However I wonder of the impact on 32 MiB and 64 MiB machines but not able to test outside of emulator > > Be well, > --Robbie -- Regards Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
