On 19/05/10 21:15 +0200, ext Jeremiah Foster wrote: > 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?
(your email client sends unquoted plain text versions of emails) I have no interest in promoting per-product anything, it's just how things are today on ARM. Having a common bootloader binary for all arm chips sounds like a pipe-dream to me right now, when we have rather big problems having even the kernel binary support multiple devices at once. One could argue the problem exists already on source level as few modern ARM boards have full support in Linus' tree. On OMAP Tony Lindgren has been pushing the multi-omap concept, but I think it has been rather moderately successful mostly because chip vendors and their customers have not cared much. It's not that the kernel ARM architecture wouldn't support it, it does, same kernel can in theory boot on all kinds of ARM architecture versions, it's everything above that, the machine specific part above arch specific. I'm afraid this is all rather academic as I have not seen anything in the direction of non-Intel board support beyond the N900 efforts by Nokia. Perhaps it is best to let the matter rest until such a time when there's more pressing needs. /lauri _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
