ron minnich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 29 Jul 2003, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > > Hmm. We can't have a per architecture default _RAMBASE? > > not sure if it makes sense per architecture. Consider those Alpha boards > where rambase depended on chip type, board type, engineer's last name, and > phase of the moon. I'm sure we'll see more of that.
Hmm. Perhaps. The SGI Itanium nodes start their memory at 196GB. For commodity stuff standardization is the rule of the game, so how much of this we will have to deal with LinuxBIOS wise is an interesting question. Mostly on the embedded stuff I would suspect. > > Ron while we are thinking about it where should we place tables on the > > ARM? It has a ROM chip as the first thing in memory. > > cool! you're looking at ARM? No, I have just been talking to a lot of people doing embedded stuff. And I like to look at problems long before I actually have to cope with them. > possibly at put tables at the other end of memory? Is there an ARM > standard for this? ARM kernels currently have a fair amount of board specific knowledge in them. An ARM BIOS is so far to easy to share code with LinuxBIOS, but we may be able to share a table structure with. Eric _______________________________________________ Linuxbios mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
