Chris Wright wrote: > * Andi Kleen (ak@xxxxxxx) wrote: > >> The disassembly stuff indeed doesn't look like something >> that belongs in the kernel. >> > > Strongly agreed. The strict ABI requirements put forth here are not > in-line with Linux, IMO. I think source compatibility is the limit of > reasonable, and any ROM code be in-tree if something like this were to > be viable upstream. > Hi Chris, Would you have less trouble if the "ROM" were actually more like a module? Specifically, if it had a proper elf header and symbol table, used symbols as entry points, and was a GPL interface (so that ROM's had to be GPL)? Then it's just a kernel module that's hidden in the option ROM space and has a C interface. I know you end up losing the ability to do crazy inlining of the ROM code but I think it becomes a much less hairy interface that way. Regards, Anthony Liguori > thanks, > -chris > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Virtualization mailing list > Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization >
