[PATCH 1/6] bootwrapper: arch/powerpc/boot code reorg
miltonm at bga.com
Thu Aug 3 15:57:36 EST 2006
On Wed Aug 2 2006 01:15:05 AM CDT, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> I wrote:
> > The ops structure seems like a reasonable concept, but I question
> > whether we need to have platform_ops separate from fw_ops, since the
> > firmware is essentially part of the implementation of the platform.
> > Also I don't see why we need to do a double indirection to get to each
> > ops function.
> Thinking about this a bit more, why do we need the indirect function
> calls at all? Do we ever want to be able to choose (e.g.) one of
> several possible console implementations at runtime? Don't we know at
> compile time which one we will be using, and thus can't we use the
> linker to make the necessary linkages?
Personally, I would like to consider a zImage that could be either an open
firmware client or a kexec kernel. However, I'm not sure that requires the
full ops set. I just did the seperate image to get the function I needed quickly.
Also, were not some of the ops pre-existing?
More information about the Linuxppc-dev