On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 17:03 -0500, Olof Johansson wrote: > > Maybe. Most of it doesn't seem to be that bit-rottable. > > > > The changes to the asm stuff in misc_32.S for example are functions we > > never ever touch once written (libgcc replacements) so I don't see them > > rotting more with LE support than they did with BE :-) > > Does KVM/qemu support running LE guest on BE host? That'd help keeping > the bitrot lower. :)
Not yet I suppose :-) But then, I'm not sure it would make a big difference, if you have a 440 board in the first place, you can boot either LE or BE, no need for a special FW or anything. What we've done is basically keep the zImage wrapper BE (for now at least), and have it trampoline to LE when executing the actual kernel (using a cuImage, of course a device-tree enabled u-Boot would probably need something akin to a proper ePAPR zImage to do that but that's reasonably easy to do nowadays). Cheers, Ben. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev