On Wed, 2013-09-04 at 10:43 +0200, Andre Przywara wrote: > I am about to write up a more elaborate technical rationale describing > the problems with multiboot on ARM: > > https://wiki.linaro.org/AndrePrzywara/Multiboot Doesn't seem to exist? A search for "mulitboot" doesn't seem to throw up the one you meant either. > > So, is having a more generic solution really needed? > > Not necessarily needed, but useful, I think. As described above I don't > see any technical obstacles of doing it in a more generic way, so we > could as well go ahead with this. On x86 from time to time the need for > additional binaries pops up (early microcode loading, for instance), so > why not be be prepared. I agree. There have also been occasions where people doing disaggregation have wanted to start multiple initial domains, requiring additional modules at load time. I don't think being generic and extensible is costing too much here. Ian. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
