linux-kernel - Re: [sodaville] [PATCH 02/11] x86: Add device tree support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4D22103C.2080705@linux.intel.com>
Date:	Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:06:52 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
CC:	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sodaville@...utronix.de,
	Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
	devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [sodaville] [PATCH 02/11] x86: Add device tree support

On 01/03/2011 09:52 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> 
> I think we've got an impedance mismatch.
> 
> The whole point of the ppc boot wrapper, and the kind of boot wrapper
> that I'm talking about here, is that it becomes part of the kernel
> image and is *not* part of firmware.  ie. an executable wrapper which
> carries the kernel as it's payload.  I'm wary too of depending of
> firmware to get things right because it can be so painful to change.
> 

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 depend on
anything outside ours -- the kernel community's -- control.

	-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/