Subrata Banik has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/34476 )
Change subject: Rampayload: Attempt to boot coreboot without ramstage ......................................................................
Patch Set 3:
Patch Set 3:
Patch Set 3:
This is much more what I was hoping was possible. But, you've introduced a new name TARGET_STAGE and then in the config.h we have ENV_PAYLOAD_LOADER
But these two things are connected in function, but not in the name. They are in some sense the terminal stage before the payload.
This seems confusing to me. Could you not have PAYLOAD_LOADER_STAGE or PRE_PAYLOAD_STAGE or FINAL_STAGE or something? Sorry, again, TARGET_STAGE doesn't communicate anything to me.
Is there some other variable name that shows a connection to the fact that the stage in question is the payload loader? Or am I missing the point here? It's just that, looking at the name TARGET_STAGE, it's hard to draw a meaning from the name. Thanks.
Ron, the idea is to not add redundant code block between ramstage or postcar to compile. For an example: AML generation code might be required for paylaod stage (ramstage/postcar) but how do we pass the target_stage name where we want to compile "ramstage" or "postcar" ?
Right now ENV_PAYLOAD_LOADER macro will tell us if payload stage is selected/enable but it won't tell us the is the name of that stage ? "ramstage" or "postcar"? here i was trying to create a new makefile variable to solve that gap and using the variable to avoid adding redundant code block
but agree that we should give some better name for better readability. i'm not good at naming :(