On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 6:19 AM Daniel Henrique Barboza <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 2/6/23 16:54, Richard Henderson wrote: > > On 2/6/23 04:00, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote: > >> To not change the behavior of boards that aren't calling > >> riscv_load_init(), add an 'load_initrd' flag to riscv_load_kernel() and > >> allow these boards to opt out from initrd loading. > > > > Surely this is simply a bug for those boards. > > > > I cannot believe, for instance, that sifive_u should allow initrd and > > sifive_e must not. > > > > Backward compatible behaviour is had simply by not providing the > > command-line argument. > > That makes sense but the question here is whether the sifive_e board supports > -initrd if the option is provided. I tend to believe that it does, and the > current > code state is mostly an oversight (we forgot to add load_initrd() support for > the > board) rather than an intentional design choice, but since I'm not sure about > it I opted for playing it safe. > > If someone can guarantee that the sifive_e and the opentitan boards are > capable of > -initrd loading I can re-send this patch without the 'load_initrd' flag.
Those boards can only boot small scale RTOS-like OSes or baremetal code. Which is why they don't support the -initrd option. I guess there isn't much harm in allowing an initrd, although I'm not really sure when it would be used. Alistair > > > Thanks, > > Daniel > > > > > > > r~ >
