On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 7:07 PM Robbie Harwood <rharw...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de> writes:
>
> > On 11/16/21 17:48, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> >
> > I work a commercial Linux vendor myself, but I find it a bit frustrating
> > when some people think Linux development should care about commercial use
> > cases only.
>
> This is a mischaracterization of what I said - I didn't mention anything
> about use cases, commercial or otherwise.  My statement was that we
> shouldn't be bound by behavior on retro hardware that we can't test.  If
> you're willing and able to test them, that's great and I'll go be quiet.

I'll be able to test in O(2 weeks) if nobody gets to it earlier.

Also my suggestion if this breaks powermacs isn't to kill the patch
altogether but to switch powerpc to choose linking address at mkimage
time like we already do on ARM. This would be little effort as most
code is already there and I can do it in an hour or less.
It seems that the lowest amount of RAM on powermacs is 32 MiB. However
at least 64 MiB seems to be more typical. My two models have 384 MiB
(powermac G3) and 512 MiB (powerbook G4). With 128 MiB or more,
loading at 2MiB or 8 MiB shouldn't be much of a difference probably
(still needs to be tested). However I wonder of the impact on 32 MiB
and 64 MiB machines but not able to test outside of emulator
>
> Be well,
> --Robbie



-- 
Regards
Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko

_______________________________________________
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel

Reply via email to