On 23.03.2017 09:19, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> On Mi, 2017-03-22 at 11:19 +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 22.03.2017 11:03, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>> On 22.03.2017 10:08, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> [...]
Are we now ready to accept a simple & stupid patch that actually helps
users, say
On Mi, 2017-03-22 at 11:19 +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 22.03.2017 11:03, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > On 22.03.2017 10:08, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Are we now ready to accept a simple & stupid patch that actually helps
> >> users, say letting boards that care declare minimum and
On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 11:03:44 +0100
Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 22.03.2017 10:08, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> [...]
> > Are we now ready to accept a simple & stupid patch that actually helps
> > users, say letting boards that care declare minimum and maximum RAM
> > size? And make
On 22.03.2017 11:03, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 22.03.2017 10:08, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> [...]
>> Are we now ready to accept a simple & stupid patch that actually helps
>> users, say letting boards that care declare minimum and maximum RAM
>> size? And make PC reject RAM size less than 1MiB,
On 22.03.2017 10:08, Markus Armbruster wrote:
[...]
> Are we now ready to accept a simple & stupid patch that actually helps
> users, say letting boards that care declare minimum and maximum RAM
> size? And make PC reject RAM size less than 1MiB, even though "someone"
> might conceivably have
Last time I checked[1], SeaBIOS required 1MiB of RAM, and the failure
modes were mean.
Back then, I asked whether we should enforce a suitable minimum RAM
size[2]. Peter Maydell replied that modelling RAM constraints involves
an expedition into the Generality Swamps, and wished me better luck