> -----Original Message----- > From: Kumar Gala [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 5:39 AM > To: Dan Malek > Cc: Li Yang-r58472; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add USB to MPC8349 PB platform support > > > On Jul 17, 2006, at 3:17 PM, Dan Malek wrote: > > > > > 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. > > Well, I think there is a coupling that exists between whatever your > boot rom is and the kernel. If you are trying to optimize boot time > I'd say one thing you would want is to avoid multiple writing the > same configuration registers. > > I dont have an issue if a fixed function board decides to do these > things in their kernel init instead of their boot rom. I however, > don't want thousand and one config options to support all the various > ways one can configure the Freescale board.
We won't have the thousand and one config options, making use of the device tree. So this is not a problem. > > > 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. > > - kumar ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
