On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 05:11:41PM -0500, David Anders wrote:
> 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?
My position is not to make things more complicated than necessary :)
Erik
> 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".
--
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.
