Kumar Gala kumar.gala at
Fri Oct 1 13:11:03 EST 2004

> > But on the other hand, I've given up a long time ago trying to 
> enforce any
>  > kind of sane model on ppc32 because the embedded folks only care 
> about having
>  > a quick ugly broken hack to work with their board, thus the 
> explosion of
>  > various incompatible boot_info structures that we have nowadays.
> Yes indeed. It's ugly and needs fixing so I'll take a look at it - I
>  just don't want to do this if everyone here already knows of a better
>  solution which will work.
> Then Xilinx et al can generate memory maps and we can head towards
>  having a single kernel binary bootable on multiple different ppc
>  boards.

I would be nice to have an extensive and dynamic way to pass info from 
the bootloader to the kernel.  I believe that Wolfgang has stated he 
would be willing to change u-boot to match.  I'd be willing to fixup 
and move Freescale boards over to use something as long as we get 
u-boot to support it as well.

I've been told that ARM has a solution, in place, to this problem that 
might always be worth looking at.

- kumar

More information about the Linuxppc-embedded mailing list