Werner Almesberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Something like that. I have yet to see a even a proof of concept > > of the idea of passing device information, to clean up probes. > > Yes, the kexec-based boot loader first, then this. For a > kexec-based boot loader, passing device scan results will be > very useful, plus it's a good environment for experimenting > with such a feature.
And from another perspective what drives things are practical requirements. Boot speed while nice does not yet seem to be a driver, and that is all I have seen proposed with passing the list of hardware. What is currently a driver in the kexec scenario is booting a kernel without firmware calls, and in the kexec-on-panic case booting a kernel without a kernel where the hardware is in a known messed up state. So far I have seen nothing that even resembles an architecture independent solution to avoiding firmware calls. And right now I'm not even certain I even expect to see something it become architecture independent. At the very least we need some clean architecture specific support first, so we can have a clue what needs to be generalized. ia64 and ppc are coming... At any rate I see the problem of which hardware devices are present as a subset of the problem of booting without firmware. So I suspect we are going to get some pretty weird architecture specific implementations at least in the first go round. Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/