Port-arm archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: Quartz64

>> [...]
> Built-in SATA support is planned, but not trivial. It requires a runtime con$

It seems to me it should be possible to build two versions, one
supporting USB3 and one supporting SATA.  If you're willing to boot
from something else, this could be done just in the kernel; otherwise
it would mean two booters, one with USB3 support and one with SATA
support, as well as a kernel build option.

...Or Have I Misunderstood (tm)?

Obviously, it would be suboptimal, but it does seem likely to be a lot
quicker and easier than trying to figure out where to save that
configuration bit.  Far too often, I've seen nothing get done because
the quick answer is not Right, but doing it Right is hard enough to get
it deferred indefinitely.

Admittedly, there is also the argument that the good is the enemy of
the best.  In this case I think I would come down on the side of having
two versions (though, of course, since I wouldn't be the one doing it
either way, this is armchair quarterbacking).

/~\ The ASCII				  Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML		mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index