On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 02:26:00PM +0100, Jens Seidel wrote: > > I know about the endian issue. But apart from it, are the > subarchitectures really so different from each other? > Shouldn't at least all support MIPS 1 ISA? > > Even if we consider also 32 vs. 64 bit kernels (or can each 64 bit hardware > run a 32 bit kernel?) I count only 2*2 = 4 possible combinations. The problem is not only that you have 4 combinations. Some architectures simply dont support 64 bit (R3k based). They might differ by load address or image time (Some bootloaders/proms may only load ecoff, some elf). Just have a look ar arch/mips/Makefile and you'll see the different load addresses. > I know from Intel architectures that one common kernel together with > a set of kernel modules is sufficent! Intel aka the PEEECEE is ALL THE SAME. The have a minimum standard what the CPU/System has to support and since 30 years the drag the backward compatibility around (e.g. A20 Gate). So a current kernel compiled for i386 boots on modern hardware and on the original i386 introduced in the stone ages. Most mips systems are build from the ground up new and do not drag the backward compatibility around so you need to provide a complete different set of drivers, load addresses, boot loader interfaces, binary format etc. Flo -- Florian Lohoff firstname.lastname@example.org +49-171-2280134 Heisenberg may have been here.
Description: Digital signature