On 28/02/17 13:36, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Andy Shevchenko > <andy.shevche...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 3:25 PM, Ard Biesheuvel >> <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org> wrote: >>> On 28 February 2017 at 12:29, Matt Fleming <m...@codeblueprint.co.uk> wrote: >>>> On Tue, 28 Feb, at 01:20:25PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> >>> As I said before, I'd be ok with it if we select it compile time, >>> i.e., no runtime logic that infers whether we are running on such a >>> system or not, and no carrying both implementations in all kernels >>> that have capsule loading built in. >> >> Actually it most likely that Quark kernel (kernel compiled to be run >> on Quark) will be ever used on the rest of (modern) x86 since it's >> 486+ architecture (kernel has specific option for it, 586TSC). > > + it's UP only! > >> So, we might just be dependent or chosen by Quark. >
Still though the current ia32 kernel runs on Quark and all other ia32 systems. It would be a pity/shame to make this feature dependent on compiling a Quark specific kernel, after all its only a header on a capsule as opposed to a large hardware-level architectural divergence. I'd still like us to try for a low-fat hook that would a big fat ia32 kernel just work without having to force a user compile up a Quark-specific kernel. -- bod
