On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 11:57:34AM -0400, Josh Huber wrote: > Dan Malek <dan at mvista.com> writes: > > > Why are you doing this? Why can't you just use a standard zImage > > format and bootloader like all other systems use? It just seems to > > me you are coding yourselves deeper into a hole where every little > > kernel interface change means a new boot rom. > > Well, I was under the impression that the whole point of using bi_recs > was to avoid changes in the future. Isn't that the point? (a > consistant interface that's forward/backward compatible)
But the bi_recs in 2.5 won't look like 2.4.current. -- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
