[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: State of ARM port
From: |
Leif Lindholm |
Subject: |
Re: State of ARM port |
Date: |
Mon, 7 Dec 2015 17:02:56 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) |
Hi Andrei,
Sorry, have been off on holiday.
On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 10:43:54AM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> It seems that distributions tend to focus on native U-Boot support for
> extlinux-like configuration and direct loading of Linux kernel/FDT.
> Recently it came up for openSUSE, reasons were named
Debian don't, and I'm not sure I've heard of any others moving that
direction, so I don't know if it can be called a trend.
> 1. upstream U-Boot prefers extlinux for loading, CONFIG_API is
> considered edge case, deprecated. They do not consider GRUB valid reason
> to maintain it :)
Do you have any references to this?
(Not questioning it, sounds likely, but would like to read through
any existing discussions.)
> 2. GRUB requires patching for each board to set valid link address
Yeah :(
> 3. some general issues on specific boards
Hmm?
> 1 requires active commitment from U-Boot community, apparently it is
> lacking. To properly fix 2 we need relocation support in U-Boot; which
> again returns us to "GRUB not being interesting to U-Boot community" :)
No, 2 would be totally fixable in GRUB. It would just take someone
actually making the grub kernel position independent. And I haven't
managed to find the time in the past two years...
> 3 depends on motivation to debug and fix issues; as long as GRUB is not
> considered there is none.
>
> So what should we do with this port?
Unsure.
I have had people start asking me for the arm64 variant, but if the
U-Boot community is actively disintirested in providing an API to hook
into, this may not make sense.
Regards,
Leif
- Re: State of ARM port,
Leif Lindholm <=