On Jul 17, 2006, at 3:16 PM, Kumar Gala wrote: > I disagree. You are coming from this from a board that does > everything under the sun. I'd like to avoid having this type of > initialization in the kernel. There is a whole additional kitchen > sink that could move into the kernel as well.
Well, I'm going to have to disagree with your disagreement :-) The kernel should not assume things are properly initialized and rely on the boot rom to do such things. I have several reasons for this. One is that we are always pressed to make embedded systems boot more quickly, and taking time to initialize things in the boot rom just makes that a totally inflexible system design. We don't need to initialize things we don't use, or can postpone until later. Two, it makes us dependent upon a particular boot rom, or boot rom behavior, that not all boards may choose to support. Three, board designs may have external logic that requires a certain start up sequence or control register access that complicates the boot rom in it's ability to share code or implementation. There are more, but I think you see the trend. In my years of doing this kind of development, you can't assume a boot rom is going to do much more than initialize memory and load the kernel. I prefer the flexibility to be in the kernel, and not in the boot rom, because it is so much easier to develop and control. Thanks. -- Dan ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel