Hi Jay, On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 01:41:49PM -0400, Jay Estabrook wrote: > On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 08:31:55AM -0700, Brian Carnes wrote: > > Is there a way for me, as an end user, to influence this? I played > > around with different boot flags at the SRM console, and could get into the > > aboot menu to see the different kernels options, but they all appear to > > load the same kernel. > It's NOT a run-time option, it's a compile-time one. > Choosing LEGACY_START_ADDRESS=y hardwires the physical address at which > the kernel itself will be loaded as 3MB (actually 0x310000). > On the TITAN-based machines (DS15/DS25/ES45) the console (SRM) lives > in that area, so the base address of the kernel needs to be AT LEAST > 8MB and better 16MB. > > Could you put a kernel that works on non-MILO machines into one of the > > aboot slots? Or will there be different netinst boot isos? > Yes, one could have differently-configured kernels available via aboot > "slots" on a single netinst CD/ISO; it's just a matter of building the > kernels (as appropriate) and managing them. Well, there doesn't seem to be much point in having a kernel listed in the aboot config that's only needed on systems that don't support SRM, does there? Given that there is no milo support in debian-installer anyway, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to drop the LEGACY_START_ADDRESS option and trade supporting pre-installed MILO-only systems for supporting TITAN systems. Do you have a feel for the relative size of the install bases of these two system classes? If there is a real case for supporting the MILO-only systems, in spite of the overwhelming lack of effort to support it for sarge installs, then I suppose we would need to talk to the kernel maintainers about building two different kernel-images for this case. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature