Erik,
so your position would be to work on replacing the existing bootloader with a
more linux friendly version, rather that do any bastardizations of the kernel?
thanks
dave
Erik Mouw wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 04:18:31PM -0500, David Anders wrote:
> > i hate to be a pest, but i had one more question. if i have some
> > assembly code to turn the mmu off (my bootloader turns it on),
>
> What's the point of turning on the MMU in the bootloader? There is
> really no need to do that, it makes the bootloader unnecessary
> complicated.
>
> > i can
> > include this in the head-sa1100.S file so that when the kernel is
> > uncompressed the mmu is off and ready, right?
>
> No, I don't think we should clutter up the kernel because some
> bootloaders won't obey the simple rule "kernel should be called with
> MMU switched off".
>
> Erik
>
> --
> J.A.K. (Erik) Mouw, Information and Communication Theory Group, Department
> of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Information Technology and Systems,
> Delft University of Technology, PO BOX 5031, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands
> Phone: +31-15-2783635 Fax: +31-15-2781843 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> WWW: http://www-ict.its.tudelft.nl/~erik/
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm
> Please visit the above address for information on this list.
_______________________________________________
http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm
Please visit the above address for information on this list.
