If the put the etherboot and filo in the ROM at the same time for fallback
Is it possible to make payload be selected by the elfboot? ( Controlled by
cmos layout or key)
Or let the Etherboot load another elf in ROM instead of HD? ( in the boot
option add BOOT_ELF or BOOT_ZELF together with BOOT_NIC, BOOT_DISK,
发件人: Stefan Reinauer [mailto:email@example.com]
发送时间: 2004年4月5日 5:47
收件人: Eric W. Biederman
抄送: Greg Watson; YhLu; 'SONE Takeshi'; linuxbios(a)clustermatic.org
主题: Re: FILO 0.4 [PMX:#]
* Eric W. Biederman <ebiederman(a)lnxi.com> [040405 05:02]:
> If we want to take a snapshot of the source tree of FILO or any other
> bootloader into the LinuxBIOS tree under util. Build that part of the
> build and build a complete romimage that works. I am fine
> with that. It is even reasonable to make it so you can drop in
> external trees like etherboot and have everything build together
> Actual linking things together instead of including them together
> is unacceptable.
What about the following:
Currently LinuxBIOS divides into 2 fundamental parts:
1) hardware initialization
2) getting and starting the payload
This second part consists of two parts, again:
Note, this is only one possible design. Maybe, this design is bloated
for some application cases.
Eric, you want to make a hard cut between what is LinuxBIOS and what is
not. This is generally a good idea, as it keeps the different
initialization steps distinct from reach other. What, if we add another
cut by dividing hardware initialization frin the payload-loader?
Instead of packing stuff like filo to util, we could do:
* create a directory loader which can hold all "loaders"
* move the elf loader with a Config.lb to a subdirectory in there
* create other directories for other "loaders" like filo.
If done right, filo can still be compiled as a payload, or built in if
the win in size is noticable. A target config file could probably choose
which method to use, without overhead. Also, syncing with other trees,
like Takeshi's filo tree could be fairly easy, too.
I don't think we really have a conflict in direction here at all.
LinuxBIOS itself should be as small as possible, and the different parts
should be as independent as possible. But we also want to be a lot more
flexible than the existing solutions..
> In addition we have had way to many questions of what is the right
> policy for a bootloader to implement, on this list. I refuse
> to couple that to the LinuxBIOS core. And I don't want some stupid
> policy in there like FILO's that would require me to upgrade
> my firmware just to upgrade my OS.
Please explain, how is filo worse here than putting linux in flash?