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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4D221130.1020405@linux.intel.com>
Date:	Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:10:56 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
CC:	devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sodaville@...utronix.de,
	Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [sodaville] [PATCH 02/11] x86: Add device tree support

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

In the case of x86, it's not just per architecture but actually per
platform interface, which is what aggravates the situation additionally.
 Unfortunately a lot of embedded x86 vendors seem extremely busy
recreating all the mistakes embedded developers on other platforms have
ever made, because "it's what they know"...

	-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/