On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Stefan Reinauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
>> Unsharing just postpones the problem for another 6 months or so. After >> that, the new code will fail as well. Besides that, wasting the whole >> boot block is not exactly my idea of efficiency. >> > No, unsharing nicely solves the problem. from what I can see, unsharing has solved the problem in one case. So, QED, it can help. Do we unshare everything? No, since we want to share data between stages I believe. It has been pointed out to me by hardware folks familiiar with future systems that sharing *code* will likely bite us, as there will likely always be a penalty for calling to ROM, even when the ROM is cached. I have no complaint with sharing *data* between stages. Sharing code is proving to be a problem and, again, vendors are somewhat surprised that we are doing the code sharing. I can take a hint :-) Also, please remember: unsharing now does not rule out re-sharing later. That is the beauty of the current sharing framework: it is really incredibly flexible, and lets us share and unshare at will. thanks ron -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
