Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759317AbZFZMXT (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:23:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756451AbZFZMXI (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:23:08 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:51027 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758044AbZFZMXH (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:23:07 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:22:54 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Alan Cox Cc: "Pan, Jacob jun" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] x86/moorestown: add moorestown platform flags Message-ID: <20090626122254.GA9959@elte.hu> References: <43F901BD926A4E43B106BF17856F07556412B7E2@orsmsx508.amr.corp.intel.com> <20090626071955.GG14078@elte.hu> <20090626101310.4110a290@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20090626093859.GA12571@elte.hu> <20090626111603.758ec7fb@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20090626110429.GB12446@elte.hu> <20090626125653.5e30bae4@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090626125653.5e30bae4@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2169 Lines: 56 * Alan Cox wrote: > > > The flags are passed by the boot loader which is the one thing > > > that knows what the platform is only deeply embedded hardware. See > > > the ARM and PPC ports. > > > > And? There's an obvious quality difference between various > > platform enumeration methods - and we strive for the highest > > quality methods. > > Good the boot loader knows precisely what it is running on That's a pretty bogus claim - on x86 a bootloader generally knows very little about 'what it is running on'. We do most of the enumeration in early platform code and retrieve information via standard BIOS interfaces. > > Using boot flags is one of the lowest quality enumeration > > methods > > It's probably the most reliable. If you don't believe so then > provide data to back your assertion You are the one who is trying to do a change here really, so you should provide data to back your assertion that all existing x86 enumeration methods are wrong and that modern x86 platforms from now on should freely splinter into non-standard platforms along boot flags. The success of the PC platform was based on standardization and standard interfaces. Do you need data for that fact? ;-) > > and the fact that there's precedence for it in other > > architectures is not a technical reason to make the same > > mistakes on x86 too. > > How about "they tried other methods and they didn't work" The thing is, you are trying to defend a v1 patch-set here that is really indefensible: it's ugly and deficient in numerous smaller and larger details. I outlined numerous deficiencies already - and i'll review v2 too to see what else is there to fix. You outlined here various claims about how x86 should suddenly change into ARM or PPC to become 'successful' - but if this current patch-set is your attempt at that then it has failed spectacularly. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/