On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 01:55:48PM -0600, Bill Gatliff wrote:
> With all due respect, I'll just say this: it WILL go wrong. There is
> no point designing for a universe where things will not go wrong,
> because that universe simply does not exist.
>
> So if your plan does not include an accommoda
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Lennart Sorensen
wrote:
>
> I think the big difference is: Some of us design it to not go wrong.
> Some of us design it to make it easy to fix when something goes wrong.
> Different philosophy.
With all due respect, I'll just say this: it WILL go wrong. There is
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 01:44:04PM -0600, Bill Gatliff wrote:
> This. As in, "what he said".
>
> And if the kernel+initramfs that it loads ends with an optional kexec
> and/or pivot_root, then the end user sees the overall experience as
> the platform "booting" their kernel from /boot in their fi
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
wrote:
>
> there is absolutely no reason why this application should not read a
> linux kernel + initrd and execute that instead of u-boot.
>
> the point i'm making is: the exact same technique could be deployed
> on any other hardwar
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 7:19 PM, Bill Gatliff wrote:
> I'm not insisting that we have to bring all this stuff into Linux too.
> In fact, keeping some of these details hidden away inside a true
> bootloader is often a good idea because some low-level hardware
> details Linux just doesn't care abo
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
wrote:
>
> u-boot began as a mind-f**k merge of parts of uclibc (or equivalent),
> some userspace code and the linux kernel.
Awww. That's about the nicest thing I've heard anyone say about
u-boot in a long time. :-)
(I don't hate u
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Lennart Sorensen
wrote:
> Using a kernel as essentially a bootloader to me is the opposite of
> your goal of making the lines of code less for your startup process.
> You have made it huge by using a linux kernel for what should be a simple
> boot loader problem.
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 09:58:19AM -0600, Bill Gatliff wrote:
> At some point, that's essential. And since you can't change it, you
> want the LOC for that part to be as small as possible so that you
> reduce your exposure to defects. That means stripping out everything
> you can live without.
>
8 matches
Mail list logo
