ollie at lanl.gov
Fri Oct 29 11:11:01 CEST 2004
On Thu, 2004-10-28 at 16:58, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> As for CF. I guess I have only seen LANL doing that, and it
> seems a little unsatisfactory. There is no reason why beoboot
> needs that much space for example.
I bet there are a lot of people using CF in the embedded world, they
can't use Etherboot to fetch the kernel from the net as you do. We
should not only think about HPC applications. People in embedded
market are in different enviroment and have different cost structure
> > I do think removing the name of the device is a wrong direction.
> It is wrong to remove the unused name of the chip?
It is not wrong to remove 'unused' name if it is actually 'unused'.
It is wrong to ignore other people's need and refuse to consider
alternatives. In my point of view, removing the .name is what those
CS people called "premature optimization".
I think the most important issue is you tried to use ldscript magic
to layout the rom image. But it is still somehow 'hardcoded'. If it
is really that magical, people should have no problem changing the
rom layout by editing their target/Config.lb. and put the c_payload
wherever they want.
More information about the coreboot