Re: EV-64260-BP & GT64260 bi_recs

In message [off-list ref] you wrote:

I think this is a result of a fundamental difference in views of how much
work should be put into 2.4 bi_rec's.

Probably.

a) Do it the same was as we're going to do it in 2.5
pros:
-----
- 2.4 & 2.5 are consistent
cons:
-----
- we don't know what we're doing in 2.5 yet and probably won't for some time
- its more kernel/driver work in the short term for 2.4

b) Do a more advanced bi_rec scheme (like benh's proposal)
pros:
-----
- more general/flexible than c) below
- may be less work than a) above (depends on what 2.5 does)
cons:
-----
- a 2.4 solution only (unless its ends up being what 2.5 uses too)
- more kernel work in short term than c)

c) Do mininimum necessary in 2.4; do it "right" in 2.5
pros:
-----
- minimal up front kernel work in 2.4
- can get it done "now"
cons:
-----
- a 2.4 solution only
- less general solution

I've deleted the ppcboot entries from that list; PPCBoot is just  one
of  many boot loaders, and doesn;t need any special handling. We will
adapt with what we have to - one way or another.

Although the list I provided assumed that c) was the path, I personally have
no opinion on this.  I just want us to all agree on which path then bang out
the details.

So how do we come to the agreement? By voting? My vote is b),  hoping
that the result will be good enough to be accepted for 2.5, too.

Can we focus on this question so we can stop going in circles?  Besides if we

I stop going in cricles here (for this round).

Wolfgang Denk

--
Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87  Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88  Email: wd@denx.de
"How is this place run - is it an anarchy?"
"No, I wouldn't say so; it is not that well organised..."

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/