On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 01:41:19PM +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote: > 2012/2/15 Víctor M. Jáquez L. <vjaquez@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 08:56:11PM -0600, Ramirez Luna, Omar wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Felipe Contreras > >> <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> When that case is applicable, we should first modify the loader code > >> >> or prepare the baseimages to be common so we can get rid of specific > >> >> loaders and just dump them into memory. > >> > > >> > I'd say the less workarounds, the better. > >> > >> If there are ever more base images compatible with the dsp, I would > >> say that unifying them into a common format to be dumped in memory > >> isn't a workaround, and in that process we can get rid of the custom > >> loader code. > > > > Yes! please! and use Ohad's rproc thingy. > > I thought rproc is tied to elf for now. It is. > > > What would be the steps to unify that common format? I guess we will depend on > > TI for that... Do we? > > But this "common" format would be specific for tidspbridge, I don't > think it makes sense for these images to have that constraint. > Certainly rproc doesn't have it, and that one is not on staging. > > In any case, the proposed patch looks good. We can deal about these > futuristic situations later on. I do agree. vmjl _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
