From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Danny Milosavljevic Subject: Re: Porting GuixSD to ARM article. Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:04:10 +0100 Message-ID: <20180123110410.17b55a5f@scratchpost.org> References: <87shc2c3fh.fsf@gmail.com> <20180122211500.GA2400@jurong> <20180122225127.28494aa4@scratchpost.org> <87tvvchqi7.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58156) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1edvRH-0001Hm-7n for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 05:04:24 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1edvRC-00006U-0g for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 05:04:23 -0500 Received: from dd26836.kasserver.com ([85.13.145.193]:39552) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1edvRB-0008Ul-QD for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 05:04:17 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87tvvchqi7.fsf@gmail.com> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Mathieu Othacehe Cc: Guix-devel Hi Mathieu, On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 10:29:52 +0100 Mathieu Othacehe wrote: > The problem with the approach of no writing u-boot is when you're > preparing a blank SD card and expect to boot from it. Right, that would be a problem sometimes. Most ARM boards I have have additional flash or eMMC which would still contain u-boot in that case - but there are boards where this isn't the case. Also, if the board prefers to boot from the SD card even if there's no u-boot on it that would be bad, too. We could ship the generic ARM image, let the user use qemu-system-arm to boot it and set up the correct u-boot in there, and only then write it to SD card. There could even be a small part in the wip-installer-2 that asks you which u-boot you want and set that up. I'm just trying to prevent Hydra from building ~1000 huge disk images with minimal differences in the future... :) Maybe all this stuff is premature optimization and we could just let Hydra build them after all. > An other problem would be in the initrd were some target specific module > can be required to mount the rootfs ("omap_hsmmc" on BBB for example). Yeah, I saw that now. I wonder how to generalize that. Maybe try to include a union of all possible boot-required modules?