On 28/02/17 13:36, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevche...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 3:25 PM, Ard Biesheuvel
>> <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org> wrote:
>>> On 28 February 2017 at 12:29, Matt Fleming <m...@codeblueprint.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 28 Feb, at 01:20:25PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>
>>> As I said before, I'd be ok with it if we select it compile time,
>>> i.e., no runtime logic that infers whether we are running on such a
>>> system or not, and no carrying both implementations in all kernels
>>> that have capsule loading built in.
>>
>> Actually it most likely that Quark kernel (kernel compiled to be run
>> on Quark) will be ever used on the rest of (modern) x86 since it's
>> 486+ architecture (kernel has specific option for it, 586TSC).
> 
> + it's UP only!
> 
>> So, we might just be dependent or chosen by Quark.
> 

Still though the current ia32 kernel runs on Quark and all other ia32
systems. It would be a pity/shame to make this feature dependent on
compiling a Quark specific kernel, after all its only a header on a
capsule as opposed to a large hardware-level architectural divergence.

I'd still like us to try for a low-fat hook that would a big fat ia32
kernel just work without having to force a user compile up a
Quark-specific kernel.

-- 
bod

Reply via email to