On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 09:40:15 +0800 "tiejun.chen" <tiejun.c...@windriver.com> wrote:
> Scott Wood wrote: > > On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 09:58:41 +0800 > > "tiejun.chen" <tiejun.c...@windriver.com> wrote: > > > >> Scott Wood wrote: > >>> The guest OS *is* the same as native Linux, as far as TLB handling is > >>> concerned. > >> Looks you means the TLB exception handler should be same between the > >> native and > >> the guest OS. Right? > > > > Yes. > > I don't think so. The HY should assist the guest OS on MMU since I already > point > the guest OS have no authority to create a real TLB directly as I previously > said. Of course the hypervisor assists, when a trap is taken. That doesn't mean the code is any different in the guest. > > Yes, of course. But that's not the point. I was just using it as a > > convenient example because that's what I've recently done ELF loading > > with... There's no reason U-Boot couldn't do the same if its ELF > > loader were updated to support device trees. Currently U-Boot loads > > bootwrapperless uImages to physical address zero. > > I never doubt the U-boot can do this for uImage. But I think we're always > talking about vmlinux, a bare Image. uImage is pretty much a bare image. It just has a header with a checksum and some info like OS/architecture, kernel version, build date, etc. There would be *no* problem doing this with vmlinux in U-Boot if someone put in the code to pass a device tree. -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
