[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] move grub_stop() (Re: [PATCH] i386-qemu port)
From: |
Robert Millan |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] move grub_stop() (Re: [PATCH] i386-qemu port) |
Date: |
Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:25:55 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 03:05:56PM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 20:54 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > Move grub_stop to init.c to ease code sharing with i386-qemu.
>
> That's not quite a movement. grub_cpu_idle() does nothing.
Well, the major problem with grub_cpu_idle() doing nothing on coreboot
is CPU consumption during polls. grub_stop() is quite a corner case,
only seen when you hit an error.
> I think we need to have several implementations of grub_stop: hard halt
> with interrupts disabled, exit from qemu, exit from other emulators if
> it's different, power off, exit to BIOS. Then different platforms
> should enable and try whatever is appropriate for them.
Note that we already have:
grub_stop: Just hang.
grub_exit: Exit to BIOS/whatever. On coreboot (and on i386-qemu)
there's really no "proper" thing to do. Maybe fallback to
grub_halt or grub_fatal.
grub_halt: Power off. Theoretically we can have it anywhere,
although in some platforms like coreboot it's not easy; otherwise
it can fallback to grub_stop.
I think grub_stop is intended to have this behaviour in all platforms.
But I'm not sure how useful is it. Perhaps it could be ditched in
favour of grub_exit?
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."
- Re: [PATCH] define GRUB_MOD_ALIGN to 0 on non-ieee1275 (Re: does module area require alignment? (Re: [PATCH] i386-qemu port)), (continued)
- Re: [PATCH] define GRUB_MOD_ALIGN to 0 on non-ieee1275 (Re: does module area require alignment? (Re: [PATCH] i386-qemu port)), Robert Millan, 2009/06/22
- Re: [PATCH] define GRUB_MOD_ALIGN to 0 on non-ieee1275 (Re: does module area require alignment? (Re: [PATCH] i386-qemu port)), Pavel Roskin, 2009/06/22
- Re: [PATCH] define GRUB_MOD_ALIGN to 0 on non-ieee1275 (Re: does module area require alignment? (Re: [PATCH] i386-qemu port)), Robert Millan, 2009/06/22
- Re: [PATCH] define GRUB_MOD_ALIGN to 0 on non-ieee1275 (Re: does module area require alignment? (Re: [PATCH] i386-qemu port)), Pavel Roskin, 2009/06/22
- Re: [PATCH] define GRUB_MOD_ALIGN to 0 on non-ieee1275 (Re: does module area require alignment? (Re: [PATCH] i386-qemu port)), Robert Millan, 2009/06/22
- Re: does module area require alignment? (Re: [PATCH] i386-qemu port), Pavel Roskin, 2009/06/22
- Re: does module area require alignment? (Re: [PATCH] i386-qemu port), Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko, 2009/06/22
- Re: does module area require alignment? (Re: [PATCH] i386-qemu port), Pavel Roskin, 2009/06/22
[PATCH] move grub_stop() (Re: [PATCH] i386-qemu port), Robert Millan, 2009/06/21
Re: [PATCH] i386-qemu port, Pavel Roskin, 2009/06/21
[PATCH] rename kernel.elf to kernel.img (Re: [PATCH] i386-qemu port), Robert Millan, 2009/06/21