Re: archdetect guessing on arm* != armel
On Fri, 2014-01-03 at 08:04 -0700, dann frazier wrote:
> > For armhf and arm64 I think we should be moving away from a model which
> > requires us to whitelist supported subarchs in the installer towards one
> > which takes advantage of the upstream progress to work on most
> > platforms. I've been experimenting with having archdetect return
> > "armhf/generic" and handling that in kernel.sh, which seems to work
> > fine.
>
> I agree with that - my reasoning for making the changes I did was to
> be able to *blacklist* certain subarchitectures which need to behave
> different than the default. For instance, knowing that a certain
> subarch uses u-boot/flash-kernel vs. grub-efi... which will be the
> case for at least one platform. Though perhaps subarch detection is an
> incorrect mechanism for this and we should instead look for the
> existance of efi interfaces?
Right, I think looking for functional properties (i.e. the presence of
EFI) should be done in preference to lists (black or white) of model
names.
subarch-x86-linux.c for example looks for the existence
of /sys/firmware/efi -- I think we can simply follow suite on ARM.
x86 does have a few hardcoded subarches (support for macs) based on DMI
information (somewhat morally equivalent to the DT model on ARM), but we
should strive on both x86 and arm for these to be the exception not the
rule.
Ian.
Reply to: