On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 12:08:32 PST (-0800), [email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 09:37:02AM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> [...]
>> This isn't really a big deal to me, as I'm only interested in RISC-V
>> systems, but there's been some pushback on the concept of an SBI so it
>> seemed like a simple way to allow people to build non-SBI (and there for not
>> really RISC-V) systems.
>
> For those reading along: I suggested the /firmware/sbi node to Palmer,
> because I'm interested in such "not really RISC-V" systems, (because it
> makes the firmware's job easier to not implement the SBI — speaking with
> my coreboot hat, here.)
>
>> One option that wouldn't require a device tree node
>> would be to have Linux boot in machine mode [...] and then provide its
>> own SBI implementation.
>
> I think this can work.
OK, sounds good!
From 1584707636940516454@xxx Tue Nov 21 20:09:32 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1584615981624343565
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread