On 09/04/2013 10:55 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
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.
Try again now. As mentioned "I am about to write ..." ;-)
Thanks,
Andre.
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
