On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 09:23:38AM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote: > I'm sorry, but Linux does depend on the boot loader,
In some ways, but we try not to do so too gratuitously. > and U-Boot does need to know whether Linux is going to use 36-bit > addressing. U-Boot knows whether it puts things over 4GiB. If Linux is going to change the LAWs in what was previously a 32-bit physical system, it doesn't seem unreasonable for it to set EN_MAS7_UPDATE. > That's just the way it works. Linux patches that repeat what U-Boot > already does just so that you don't need to update your U-boot are going > to be rejected. Why'd we do cuboot then? Or any other compatibility measure (e.g. working with old device trees) or board-specific non-OS-specific init thing which might be better off done in firmware (e.g. setting up I/O pins to match what's on the board)? Firmware is harder to upgrade than a kernel, sometimes it's not worth it. Especially if new firmware won't boot old OSes, which could be the case with EN_MAS7_UPDATE on a non-36-bit-aware OS (compatibility is the reason that bit exists). -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
