> o When submitting this patches as RFC to the arm kernel ml we should > also ask about how we should handle the different phones with regards > to the machine registry. I would prefer to discuss this with some > code in the back instead of a theoretical discussion.
I have had a quick look at the patch and it seems like they all share one machine type? This is bad. As far as I know, the motorola bootloader doesn't set the machine type in the register (r7?) correctly before jumping into the kernel. I personally believe that every hardware model should have its own machine type, and the kernel should just do 'as usual'. At some point we might have our own bootloader on the devices, at which we can do this 'correctly', i.e. specify the machine type from the bootloader. Until we get there, I propose either: 1) some kind of object code snippet that we can put between bootloader and kernel (sounds ugly) 2) some ugly local (non-mainline) patch that modifies head.S (like now), but with the difference that it is somehow user-configurable which machine type should be hard-coded into head.S Comments? -- - Harald Welte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://gnumonks.org/ ============================================================================ "Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option." (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
