On May 19, 2010, at 4:32 PM, Lauri Leukkunen wrote:
> On 19/05/10 15:38 +0200, ext Carsten Munk wrote:
>> 2010/5/17 Esben Haabendal <[email protected]>:
>>> Sorry, but it is a bit disturbing how often Meego is mentioned as being
>>> an Intel architecture. When talking about bootloader, grub and syslinux
>>> clearly does not cover the whole architecture. Or is the N900/ARM
>>> already going to be phased out?
>>
>> On the other hand, they're also leaving the stage to the ARM people on
>> how it can be done/is done on their side - not overstepping eachothers
>> territory. Intel knows IA best, ARM guys knows ARM best.
>>
>> On ARM tradition seems to be a kernel in a NAND area or a kernel in a
>> FAT32 file system. On N900, kernel is flashed to NAND and loaded by
>> NOLO. Kernel then knows about btrfs as a root filesystem and boots it
>> happily. Btrfs in u-boot would probably be the obvious question, if it
>> exists?
>
> On ARM the bootloader doesn't have such a uniform environment to execute in
> as on the IA. I think it would be fair to compare the ARM bootloaders to the
> BIOS + bootloader combo on IA. Very often product revision specific things
> are done in the bootloader. It's not entirely impossible to have something
> like u-boot be a standard MeeGo bootloader for ARM, but it's by no means a
> given that it would satisfy for example Nokia's requirements for actual
> product. MeeGo would be perhaps best to prepare for having a per-product
> bootloader binary in the repository.
Why stop there? Why not climb up the stack with per-product OS and userland?
Jeremiah
_______________________________________________
MeeGo-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
