Re: Specification of BTINFO_CONSOLE value in bootinfo.h

To: Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>, "tech-kern%netbsd.org@localhost" <tech-kern%netbsd.org@localhost>, "port-amd64%netbsd.org@localhost" <port-amd64%netbsd.org@localhost>
Subject: Re: Specification of BTINFO_CONSOLE value in bootinfo.h
From: deco33000%yandex.com@localhost
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 22:21:11 +0200

Yes, and ? Is it a problem in itself ? I am not sure if you consider it as such.

Having a verified common block is a good thing. It avoid devs to reinvent the wheel on something that is essential but _by definition_ brings nothing once the kernel is loaded. So why have (eventually) flacky bootloaders when one could fit them all ?

Convergence of efforts, cleanness of design, well understood by everybody, tackles the a20 gate, and all the _very_ boring heritage for us.

I may miss your point though Joerg.
-- 
Jog

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Specification of BTINFO_CONSOLE value in bootinfo.h
  - From: Joerg Sonnenberger
- Re: Specification of BTINFO_CONSOLE value in bootinfo.h
  - From: Martin Husemann

References:
- Specification of BTINFO_CONSOLE value in bootinfo.h
  - From: deco33000
- Re: Specification of BTINFO_CONSOLE value in bootinfo.h
  - From: John Nemeth
- Re: Specification of BTINFO_CONSOLE value in bootinfo.h
  - From: deco33000
- Re: Specification of BTINFO_CONSOLE value in bootinfo.h
  - From: Sheda
- Re: Specification of BTINFO_CONSOLE value in bootinfo.h
  - From: Joerg Sonnenberger
- Re: Specification of BTINFO_CONSOLE value in bootinfo.h
  - From: deco33000
- Re: Specification of BTINFO_CONSOLE value in bootinfo.h
  - From: Joerg Sonnenberger

Prev by Date: Re: Specification of BTINFO_CONSOLE value in bootinfo.h
Next by Date: Re: Specification of BTINFO_CONSOLE value in bootinfo.h
Previous by Thread: Re: Specification of BTINFO_CONSOLE value in bootinfo.h
Next by Thread: Re: Specification of BTINFO_CONSOLE value in bootinfo.h
Indexes:

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index