On 12/30/2010 12:58 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
Right, but in all of those cases a boot wrapper provides the same
functionality with better flexability, such as being able to provided
the dtb image(s) at install time instead of compile time.
Assuming the boot wrapper is written correctly. I
On 01/03/2011 08:05 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 12/30/2010 12:58 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
Right, but in all of those cases a boot wrapper provides the same
functionality with better flexability, such as being able to provided
the dtb image(s) at install time instead of compile time.
On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 08:19:36AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 01/03/2011 08:05 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 12/30/2010 12:58 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
Right, but in all of those cases a boot wrapper provides the same
functionality with better flexability, such as being able to provided
On 01/03/2011 10:06 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
The problem with that kind of boot wrapper is that they are
per-architecture, increasing the differences between architectures
needlessly, and they are often implemented very poorly.
As such, it's nice to have an ultimate fallback that doesn't
On 12/30/2010 12:26 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
Since Linux on x86 has pretty much always depended on a two stage boot
(firmware boots a bootloader like grub which in turn boots the
kernel), then what is the use case for pursuing an in-kernel dtb
linkage? simpleimage was used on powerpc for the
