I read on the linuxbios webpage about PPC-support.. Aren t you guys aware of the U-boot project? They ve been running the GNU Linux kernel 2.4.19 and 2.4 21 in firmware for a while now.. Maybe I m just missing something, but I thought some merging of efforts might be in place.. http://sourceforge.net/projects/u-boot/ Regards /David
On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, David Eliasson wrote:
I read on the linuxbios webpage about PPC-support.. Aren t you guys aware of the U-boot project?
Sure.
They've been running the GNU Linux kernel 2.4.19 and 2.4 21 in firmware for a while now.. Maybe I m just missing something, but I thought some merging of efforts might be in place..
I tried to have a conversation with somebody from u-boot about some sort of merge, but it never got beyond the "why u-boot is better than linuxbios" stage, so I dropped it. ron
I have been porting u-boot to different processors for 2 years and just started looking at linuxbios. IMHO, u-boot is ok if you are bringing up hardware for the first time and you need an intermediate stage to peek and poke the hardware before trying to bring up Linux. With u-boot you get to a command prompt before booting Linux so you can examine things and complete the conguration code before bypassing the command prompt and going directly to Linux. If your hardware is stable and you don't need the command prompt then linuxbios is probably the best way to go... --- ron minnich <rminnich@lanl.gov> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, David Eliasson wrote:
I read on the linuxbios webpage about PPC-support.. Aren t you guys aware of the U-boot project?
Sure.
They've been running the GNU Linux kernel 2.4.19 and 2.4 21 in firmware for a while now.. Maybe I m just missing something, but I thought some merging of efforts might be in place..
I tried to have a conversation with somebody from u-boot about some sort of merge, but it never got beyond the "why u-boot is better than linuxbios" stage, so I dropped it.
ron
_______________________________________________ Linuxbios mailing list Linuxbios@clustermatic.org http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
At 3:47 PM -0600 23/6/03, ron minnich wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, David Eliasson wrote:
I read on the linuxbios webpage about PPC-support.. Aren t you guys aware of the U-boot project?
Sure.
They've been running the GNU Linux kernel 2.4.19 and 2.4 21 in firmware for a while now.. Maybe I m just missing something, but I thought some merging of efforts might be in place..
I tried to have a conversation with somebody from u-boot about some sort of merge, but it never got beyond the "why u-boot is better than linuxbios" stage, so I dropped it.
I spent some time looking at PPCBoot (now called u-boot) before I did the PPC port of linuxbios, but in the end I didn't use much. Most of the "hard" stuff came from another open source bios project called GBios, particularly the PCI code. The major advantages that linuxbios has over u-boot is the flexibility it provides in configuration management, and now that it has been ported to 3+ architectures, the architecture dependencies are particularly well defined. Greg
Hello again from Gregg C Levine I agree in principle Ron, but I am curious as to why they thought that. After all, Linux BIOS does more for a system then U-Boot. It's my guess that after seeing the appropriate demonstrations that group will change their minds, collectively or otherwise. For that matter, Greg W, I applaud your efforts regarding the PPC port. ------------------- Gregg C Levine hansolofalcon@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------------------------------------ "The Force will be with you...Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi "Use the Force, Luke." Obi-Wan Kenobi (This company dedicates this E-Mail to General Obi-Wan Kenobi ) (This company dedicates this E-Mail to Master Yoda )
-----Original Message----- From: linuxbios-admin@clustermatic.org [mailto:linuxbios- admin@clustermatic.org] On Behalf Of ron minnich Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 5:47 PM To: David Eliasson Cc: linuxbios@clustermatic.org Subject: Re: LinuxBios PPC-support.. U-Boot project
On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, David Eliasson wrote:
I read on the linuxbios webpage about PPC-support.. Aren t you guys aware of the U-boot project?
Sure.
They've been running the GNU Linux kernel 2.4.19 and 2.4 21 in firmware for a while now.. Maybe I m just missing something, but I thought some merging of efforts might be in place..
I tried to have a conversation with somebody from u-boot about some sort of merge, but it never got beyond the "why u-boot is better than linuxbios" stage, so I dropped it.
ron
_______________________________________________ Linuxbios mailing list Linuxbios@clustermatic.org http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
As I said before, If you want to convert the u-boot users, you have to provide an option to go to a command line instead of just unconditionally booting linux. Getting to a command line is not rocket science... --- Gregg C Levine <hansolofalcon@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Hello again from Gregg C Levine I agree in principle Ron, but I am curious as to why they thought that. After all, Linux BIOS does more for a system then U-Boot. It's my guess that after seeing the appropriate demonstrations that group will change their minds, collectively or otherwise. For that matter, Greg W, I applaud your efforts regarding the PPC port. ------------------- Gregg C Levine hansolofalcon@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------------------------------------ "The Force will be with you...Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi "Use the Force, Luke."� Obi-Wan Kenobi (This company dedicates this E-Mail to General Obi-Wan Kenobi ) (This company dedicates this E-Mail to Master Yoda )
-----Original Message----- From: linuxbios-admin@clustermatic.org [mailto:linuxbios- admin@clustermatic.org] On Behalf Of ron minnich Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 5:47 PM To: David Eliasson Cc: linuxbios@clustermatic.org Subject: Re: LinuxBios PPC-support.. U-Boot project
On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, David Eliasson wrote:
I read on the linuxbios webpage about PPC-support.. Aren t you guys aware of the U-boot project?
Sure.
They've been running the GNU Linux kernel 2.4.19 and 2.4 21 in firmware for a while now.. Maybe I m just missing something, but I thought some merging of efforts might be in place..
I tried to have a conversation with somebody from u-boot about some sort of merge, but it never got beyond the "why u-boot is better than linuxbios" stage, so I dropped it.
ron
_______________________________________________ Linuxbios mailing list Linuxbios@clustermatic.org http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
_______________________________________________ Linuxbios mailing list Linuxbios@clustermatic.org http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Yes, and the nice thing about the linuxbios architecture is that the CLI can just be a payload, so you can have any CLI that you want - forth, tcl, whatever. No changes are required to linuxbios at all. Greg At 6:03 PM -0700 24/6/03, Frank wrote:
As I said before, If you want to convert the u-boot users, you have to provide an option to go to a command line instead of just unconditionally booting linux. Getting to a command line is not rocket science...
--- Gregg C Levine <hansolofalcon@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Hello again from Gregg C Levine I agree in principle Ron, but I am curious as to why they thought that. After all, Linux BIOS does more for a system then U-Boot. It's my guess that after seeing the appropriate demonstrations that group will change their minds, collectively or otherwise. For that matter, Greg W, I applaud your efforts regarding the PPC port. ------------------- Gregg C Levine hansolofalcon@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------------------------------------ "The Force will be with you...Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi "Use the Force, Luke."Ý Obi-Wan Kenobi (This company dedicates this E-Mail to General Obi-Wan Kenobi ) (This company dedicates this E-Mail to Master Yoda )
-----Original Message----- From: linuxbios-admin@clustermatic.org [mailto:linuxbios- admin@clustermatic.org] On Behalf Of ron minnich Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 5:47 PM To: David Eliasson Cc: linuxbios@clustermatic.org Subject: Re: LinuxBios PPC-support.. U-Boot project
On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, David Eliasson wrote:
I read on the linuxbios webpage about PPC-support.. Aren t you guys aware of the U-boot project?
Sure.
They've been running the GNU Linux kernel 2.4.19 and 2.4 21 in firmware for a while now.. Maybe I m just missing something, but I thought some merging of efforts might be in place..
I tried to have a conversation with somebody from u-boot about some sort of merge, but it never got beyond the "why u-boot is better than linuxbios" stage, so I dropped it.
ron
_______________________________________________ Linuxbios mailing list Linuxbios@clustermatic.org http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
_______________________________________________ Linuxbios mailing list Linuxbios@clustermatic.org http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Linuxbios mailing list Linuxbios@clustermatic.org http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
Interesting, I didn't know that. So I can write my own cli and jump to it from LinuxBios instead of booting Linux? --- Greg Watson <gwatson@lanl.gov> wrote:
Yes, and the nice thing about the linuxbios architecture is that the CLI can just be a payload, so you can have any CLI that you want - forth, tcl, whatever. No changes are required to linuxbios at all.
Greg
At 6:03 PM -0700 24/6/03, Frank wrote:
As I said before, If you want to convert the u-boot users, you have to provide an option to go to a command line instead of just unconditionally booting linux. Getting to a command line is not rocket science...
--- Gregg C Levine <hansolofalcon@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Hello again from Gregg C Levine I agree in principle Ron, but I am curious as to why they thought that. After all, Linux BIOS does more for a system then U-Boot. It's my guess that after seeing the appropriate demonstrations that group will change their minds, collectively or otherwise. For that matter, Greg W, I applaud your efforts regarding the PPC port. ------------------- Gregg C Levine hansolofalcon@worldnet.att.net
"The Force will be with you...Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi "Use the Force, Luke."� Obi-Wan Kenobi (This company dedicates this E-Mail to General Obi-Wan Kenobi ) (This company dedicates this E-Mail to Master Yoda )
-----Original Message----- From: linuxbios-admin@clustermatic.org [mailto:linuxbios- admin@clustermatic.org] On Behalf Of ron minnich Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 5:47 PM To: David Eliasson Cc: linuxbios@clustermatic.org Subject: Re: LinuxBios PPC-support.. U-Boot project
On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, David Eliasson wrote:
I read on the linuxbios webpage about PPC-support.. Aren t you guys aware of the U-boot project?
Sure.
They've been running the GNU Linux kernel 2.4.19 and 2.4 21 in firmware for a while now.. Maybe I m just missing something, but I thought some merging of efforts might be in place..
I tried to have a conversation with somebody from u-boot about some sort of merge, but it never got beyond the "why u-boot is better than linuxbios" stage, so I dropped it.
ron
_______________________________________________ Linuxbios mailing list Linuxbios@clustermatic.org http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
_______________________________________________ Linuxbios mailing list Linuxbios@clustermatic.org http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Linuxbios mailing list Linuxbios@clustermatic.org http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Interesting, I didn't know that. So I can write my own cli and jump to it from LinuxBios instead of booting Linux? I think Adam has done LinuxBIOS + Redboot before.
-Andrew -- Andrew Ip Email: aip@cwlinux.com Tel: (852) 2542 2046 Fax: (852) 2542 2036 Mobile: (852) 9201 9866 Cwlinux Limited Unit 202B 2/F Lai Cheong Factory Building, 479-479A Castle Peak Road, Lai Chi Kok, Kowloon, Hong Kong. Tel: (852)2542 2046 Fax: (852)2542 2036 For public pgp key, please obtain it from http://www.keyserver.net/en.
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Frank wrote:
Interesting, I didn't know that. So I can write my own cli and jump to it from LinuxBios instead of booting Linux?
absolutely. In essence, that's what etherboot does. See the bare metal toolkit for other interesting applications. This is why the name 'linuxbios' gives us trouble. We've been trying to figure out if a name change would cause us more trouble, and so far the answer has been 'yes it will cause more trouble'. ron
ron minnich wrote:
This is why the name 'linuxbios' gives us trouble. We've been trying to figure out if a name change would cause us more trouble, and so far the answer has been 'yes it will cause more trouble'.
If the situation changes, I parked www.omniboot.org in case it's ever needed. -Bari
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Frank wrote:
As I said before, If you want to convert the u-boot users, you have to provide an option to go to a command line instead of just unconditionally booting linux. Getting to a command line is not rocket science...
One option is to just take their command-line interpreter and make it a payload. I'd like to see someone try that. ron
A command line is a key part of how we use our (now very old) version of linuxbios. Though what we are using is from the dark ages, based on what I've seen linxbios become, I think that making a command line utility be a payload is the right solution. Ty ron minnich wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Frank wrote:
As I said before, If you want to convert the u-boot users, you have to provide an option to go to a command line instead of just unconditionally booting linux. Getting to a command line is not rocket science...
One option is to just take their command-line interpreter and make it a payload. I'd like to see someone try that.
ron
_______________________________________________ Linuxbios mailing list Linuxbios@clustermatic.org http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
-- Tyson D Sawyer iRobot Corporation Senior Systems Engineer Military Systems Division tsawyer@irobot.com Robots for the Real World 603-654-3400 ext 206 http://www.irobot.com
Gregg C Levine wrote:
Hello again from Gregg C Levine I agree in principle Ron, but I am curious as to why they thought that. After all, Linux BIOS does more for a system then U-Boot. It's my guess that after seeing the appropriate demonstrations that group will change their minds, collectively or otherwise.
There was quite a bit of bickering on the U-Boot list at the time. Things seem to have settled down since last fall and theU-Boot list seems to be getting along now. Here are some snippets from last falls discussion about this: LinuxBIOS was designed to use Linux to boot the OS of choice.
So was PPCBoot, but without excluding the resto of the world.
So was LinuxBIOS, it currently also boots Plan9 and WinCE.
Bragging about each other's feats won't take us anywhere....
It uses some assembly to do some basic init and config and then jumps to Linux to fully configure the rest of the system, after that LinuxBIOS jumps to whatever OS kernel is wanted.
So your boot sequence is LinuxBIOS => Linux => LinuxBIOS => Target OS?
LinuxBIOS (a few lines of assembly and then a Linux kernel) => TargetOS
That means in order to use LinuxBIOS on a platform, you first need to have at least a basic Linux Kernel that runs on that platform. Thus, if you want to port to a new platform, you have to struggle with interrupts, MMU initialization, caches, possibly DMA before you get *anything* to run. This approach makes perfect sense when the kernel is already there, but to *begin* porting at this level -- no thanks!
it also supports this boot sequence:
LinuxBIOS (few lines of assembly and no Linux kernel)=> EtherBoot => TargetOS. Linux itself is basically not needed.
So where is the gain over e.g. Etherboot without LinuxBIOS ? I believe it's safe to say that a _merge_ of PPCboot/ARMboot/Blob and LinuxBIOS is not going to happen. And rightly so IMHO since they are (valid) tools to solve different problems. Even an x86 port of PPCboot would make a lot of sense because nothing of this kind exists in the x86 world (at least not under GPL). This has been discussed here before (BTW: what's the status of the PPCboot/x86 project ?). Of course the bootloaders contain code which the LinuxBIOS people might find useful to rip^H^H^Hre-use (and vice versa). This shouldn't be a problem since they are license compatible. LinuxBIOS was designed to use Linux to boot the OS of choice.
So was PPCBoot, but without excluding the resto of the world.
this is not the forum for PPCBoot vs. LinuxBIOS arguments. I Just Don't Care. I am sure PPCBoot is wonderful software!
So your boot sequence is LinuxBIOS => Linux => LinuxBIOS => Target OS?
no. The boot sequence is: - LinuxBIOS -> Linux -> OS (i.e. on Pink) - LinuxBIOS -> 9load -> Plan 9 - LinuxBIOS -> Etherboot built in to linuxbios -> OS of choice - LinuxBios -> Etherboot (external ) -> OS of choice In other words, we have lots of boot sequences depending on the target system and OS. The issue of *BSD is not that we can't boot it. We can. The issue is that *BSD wants to make BIOS calls we don't support.
Seems a bit overkill to me. Especially in systems where (flash) memory is tight it might be a PITA to have to reserve space for a Linux kernel just to initialize the hardware.
We Have Our Reasons. And, we don't always load linux in flash.
The current version of PPCBoot boots Linux, VxWorks, QNX, and NetBSD.
terrific! I'm happy for you. But this is not a competition.
It seems you do not know much about PPCBoot.
funny, as it seem syou don't know much about linuxbios. So we all need to read more :-)
PPCBoot also provides powerful scripting capabilties; busybox' "hush" shell has been integrated, so you can write standard shell scripts or run conditional command sequences using "if...then...else...fi", "for...do...done", "while...do...done", "until...do...done", or using shortcuts like "cmd1 && cmd2" or "cmd1 || cmd2".
I really don't much like firmware that starts taking on the attributes of an OS, but to each his own. If you're going to put an OS in firmware, just make it an OS, not a pseudo-OS. But that's just my opinion. anyway, I am sure PPCBoot is wonderful, and we should be sharing code, not getting out our rulers to see whose BIOS is bigger. -Bari
u-boot's weakness is that it primarily supports arm and ppc processors. There is only one x86 board in the source tree and it won't even compile! If u-boot had more support for x86 platforms, it would give linuxbios a serious run for it's money. --- Bari Ari <bari@onelabs.com> wrote:
Gregg C Levine wrote:
Hello again from Gregg C Levine I agree in principle Ron, but I am curious as to why they thought that. After all, Linux BIOS does more for a system then U-Boot. It's my guess that after seeing the appropriate demonstrations that group will change their minds, collectively or otherwise.
There was quite a bit of bickering on the U-Boot list at the time. Things seem to have settled down since last fall and theU-Boot list seems to be getting along now. Here are some snippets from last falls discussion about this:
LinuxBIOS was designed to use Linux to boot the OS of choice.
So was PPCBoot, but without excluding the resto of the
world.
So was LinuxBIOS, it currently also boots Plan9 and WinCE.
Bragging about each other's feats won't take us anywhere....
>It uses some assembly to do some basic init and config and then jumps to >Linux to fully configure the rest of the system, after that LinuxBIOS >jumps to whatever OS kernel is wanted.
So your boot sequence is LinuxBIOS => Linux => LinuxBIOS
=> Target OS?
LinuxBIOS (a few lines of assembly and then a Linux kernel) => TargetOS
That means in order to use LinuxBIOS on a platform, you first need to have at least a basic Linux Kernel that runs on that platform. Thus, if you want to port to a new platform, you have to struggle with interrupts, MMU initialization, caches, possibly DMA before you get *anything* to run. This approach makes perfect sense when the kernel is already there, but to *begin* porting at this level -- no thanks!
it also supports this boot sequence:
LinuxBIOS (few lines of assembly and no Linux kernel)=> EtherBoot => TargetOS. Linux itself is basically not needed.
So where is the gain over e.g. Etherboot without LinuxBIOS ?
I believe it's safe to say that a _merge_ of PPCboot/ARMboot/Blob and LinuxBIOS is not going to happen. And rightly so IMHO since they are (valid) tools to solve different problems. Even an x86 port of PPCboot would make a lot of sense because nothing of this kind exists in the x86 world (at least not under GPL). This has been discussed here before (BTW: what's the status of the PPCboot/x86 project ?).
Of course the bootloaders contain code which the LinuxBIOS people might find useful to rip^H^H^Hre-use (and vice versa). This shouldn't be a problem since they are license compatible.
LinuxBIOS was designed to use Linux to boot the OS of choice.
So was PPCBoot, but without excluding the resto of the
world.
this is not the forum for PPCBoot vs. LinuxBIOS arguments. I Just Don't Care. I am sure PPCBoot is wonderful software!
So your boot sequence is LinuxBIOS => Linux => LinuxBIOS => Target OS?
no. The boot sequence is: - LinuxBIOS -> Linux -> OS (i.e. on Pink) - LinuxBIOS -> 9load -> Plan 9 - LinuxBIOS -> Etherboot built in to linuxbios -> OS of choice - LinuxBios -> Etherboot (external ) -> OS of choice
In other words, we have lots of boot sequences depending on the target system and OS.
The issue of *BSD is not that we can't boot it. We can. The issue is that *BSD wants to make BIOS calls we don't support.
Seems a bit overkill to me. Especially in systems where (flash) memory is tight it might be a PITA to have to reserve space for a Linux kernel just to initialize the hardware.
We Have Our Reasons. And, we don't always load linux in flash.
The current version of PPCBoot boots Linux, VxWorks, QNX, and NetBSD.
terrific! I'm happy for you. But this is not a competition.
It seems you do not know much about PPCBoot.
funny, as it seem syou don't know much about linuxbios. So we all need to read more :-)
PPCBoot also provides powerful scripting capabilties; busybox' "hush" shell has been integrated, so you can write standard shell scripts or run conditional command sequences using "if...then...else...fi", "for...do...done", "while...do...done", "until...do...done", or using shortcuts like "cmd1 && cmd2" or "cmd1 || cmd2".
I really don't much like firmware that starts taking on the attributes of an OS, but to each his own. If you're going to put an OS in firmware, just make it an OS, not a pseudo-OS. But that's just my opinion.
anyway, I am sure PPCBoot is wonderful, and we should be sharing code, not getting out our rulers to see whose BIOS is bigger.
-Bari
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Frank wrote:
u-boot's weakness is that it primarily supports arm and ppc processors. There is only one x86 board in the source tree and it won't even compile! If u-boot had more support for x86 platforms, it would give linuxbios a serious run for it's money.
yeah but why do it this way. With the openbios guys, we've ended up splitting the work: linuxbios does the cruft, openbios does the forth stuff. IF uboot wants that command interpreter, why not combine forces and make the CLI a payload, and linuxbios sucks in all that good u-boot cpu stuff. seems like we'd get twice as far. ron
Very good idea... --- ron minnich <rminnich@lanl.gov> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Frank wrote:
u-boot's weakness is that it primarily supports arm and ppc processors. There is only one x86 board in the source tree and it won't even compile! If u-boot had more support for x86 platforms, it would give linuxbios a serious run for it's money.
yeah but why do it this way. With the openbios guys, we've ended up splitting the work: linuxbios does the cruft, openbios does the forth stuff. IF uboot wants that command interpreter, why not combine forces and make the CLI a payload, and linuxbios sucks in all that good u-boot cpu stuff.
seems like we'd get twice as far.
ron
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
* ron minnich <rminnich@lanl.gov> [030625 19:22]:
yeah but why do it this way. With the openbios guys, we've ended up splitting the work: linuxbios does the cruft, openbios does the forth stuff. IF uboot wants that command interpreter, why not combine forces and
I've gotten OpenBIOS a bit further last weekend, seperating architecture dependent and independent code and getting the dictionary from a fixed address in flash. Still missing is the code to load the forth dictionary right from an elf segment. On the interpreter front I have all the forth words working that are needed for the interpreter, and the interpreter loop already reads and outputs things, but thats about it. Being busy with LinuxBIOS during the week made me enjoying the sun rather than my suns on the weekend :-) Stefan -- Architecture Team SuSE Linux AG
Frank <frannk_m1@yahoo.com> writes:
u-boot's weakness is that it primarily supports arm and ppc processors. There is only one x86 board in the source tree and it won't even compile! If u-boot had more support for x86 platforms, it would give linuxbios a serious run for it's money.
There is also the fact that all of the platforms U-Boot runs on appear to be very simple ones. No complicated SPD base memory initialization, etc. LinuxBIOS supports much more complicated hardware. That is the other reason for the design skew. If you can write proper memory initialization code in a day. You can put it in your bootloader. If it takes a week or two, separating board initialization and your bootloader makes a lot more sense. Eric
No, I beg to differ. I have ported u-boot to more then one ppc based platform. Thye do have SPD support. I ported over to the ppc750fx (with a Marvel 64360 system controller) and the 440gp based platforms --- "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederman@lnxi.com> wrote:
Frank <frannk_m1@yahoo.com> writes:
u-boot's weakness is that it primarily supports arm and ppc processors. There is only one x86 board in the source tree and it won't even compile! If u-boot had more support for x86 platforms, it would give linuxbios a serious run for it's money.
There is also the fact that all of the platforms U-Boot runs on appear to be very simple ones. No complicated SPD base memory initialization, etc.
LinuxBIOS supports much more complicated hardware.
That is the other reason for the design skew. If you can write proper memory initialization code in a day. You can put it in your bootloader. If it takes a week or two, separating board initialization and your bootloader makes a lot more sense.
Eric
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Frank <frannk_m1@yahoo.com> writes:
No, I beg to differ. I have ported u-boot to more then one ppc based platform. Thye do have SPD support. I ported over to the ppc750fx (with a Marvel 64360 system controller) and the 440gp based platforms
Oh interesting. I still think LinuxBIOS runs on more challenging platforms, but the dividing line seems to farther out than I thought. Eric
participants (10)
-
Andrew Ip -
Bari Ari -
David Eliasson -
ebiederman＠lnxi.com -
Frank -
Greg Watson -
Gregg C Levine -
ron minnich -
Stefan Reinauer -
tyson＠irobot.com