coreboot March 2014

coreboot@coreboot.org

57 participants
180 discussions

Re: [coreboot] Friendly reminder: Please just send plain text messages to the list
by mrnuke 12 Mar '14

12 Mar '14

Why don't we just configure the mail server to reject messages containing HTML? Most instances of HTML I've seen have been accidental anyway. It's not like there was ever an instance of html being useful here. Alex

3 2

Re: [coreboot] Friendly reminder: Please just send plain text messages to the list
by Xavi Drudis Ferran 12 Mar '14

12 Mar '14

I hesitate to make this thread longer... Just my 2c. HTML - please no. It's bloated for this purpose and I've seen it (outside this list) introduce costly errors because of that. It brings new features that are not needed and more complex to master (I mean taking into account efficiency, compatibility, accessibility, etc.). It's useful for web, not for email. The fact that someone can write perfectly compliant, accessible and pleasing websites does not mean this someone will spend the same effort in every email message. HTML knowledge should be no requirement to participate in this list, so some users may be unaware of possibly pitfalls in their HTML messages. Also, users of text only email readers need not be excluded. UTF-8 - yes, any standarised encoding, but UTF-8 is fine. I don't like changing the names of other people. I like to copy them verbatim. There's people all over the world in this list. So I think the feature of being able to codify many of the characters in the world is useful. The fact that communication is in English (I wouldn't require it either) and my name can be written correctly in ASCII does not mean that everybody has to have names in ASCII. I think these and possibly other arguments are stronger than message size. But I'm not implying that plain text vs HTML wastes the same space as ASCII vs UTF-8 for messages in English. Thanks.

2 1

Re: [coreboot] Friendly reminder: Please just send plain text messages to the list
by David Woodhouse 12 Mar '14

12 Mar '14

On Wed, 2014-03-12 at 10:14 -0700, ron minnich wrote: > Dear coreboot folks, > > > lately even long time contributors started to send messages to the > list, which were not just plain text but included UTF-8. > > Besides that UTF-8 for text only adds advantage in rare cases, > it also increases message size, since it can grow the size of a single > printable character by a factor of four. ☺ -- dwmw2

1 0

Re: [coreboot] I've turned on paging as a test
by Jonathan A. Kollasch 12 Mar '14

12 Mar '14

On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 02:33:41PM -0700, ron minnich wrote: > And locked out page zero. And we trap. > > So, first question, can we move X86_BDA_BASE to somewhere other than 0x400? > Anyone know? The BIOS Data Area is not movable. Jonathan Kollasch

3 3

Re: [coreboot] I've turned on paging as a test
by Peter Stuge 12 Mar '14

12 Mar '14

ron minnich wrote: > > > I think the bigger question that we need to answer, now that we know > > > it's doable, is whether we want paging or not. We may not. > > There's been confusion about terms such as paging and virtual memory > in the past. So, to clear it up, 'paging' in this context means PGE > is set in cr0 I do know what paging is. You and I even worked together on the GTT page table at the Berlin meeting last year. Maybe my point was too subtle. You have said many times in the past, and I think it is a very good point, that we should be careful not to turn coreboot into an operating system. One might even dare say that this is a core value of the project. > We have it today on ARM 32 and ARM V8. Why is it helpful or neccessary there? > We will have to have it on x86_64. Why is it neccessary there? > > > I was hoping it would give us a more convenient way to cover > > > cache-disabled, write-back, and write-through ranges without > > > all the fuss of MTRRs. > > > > I never like quick solutions because they're usually not good. > > I don't understand your comment. I struggle when trying to explain it to Vladimir too. :\ > We first had platforms with paging 12 years ago. This is quick? :-) When it was first used for matters less than how long it has been considered for this particular use case. My concern is with the following thought process: - MTRRs sure make for a lot of fuss. - I wish we could do something simpler. - Let's turn on paging, that would be simpler! I'm not saying that paging would not be simpler in some ways - I'm saying that it seems like a big change, introducing codebase-wide address indirection, for seemingly small gain of avoiding fuss with MTRRs. Oh, and since we don't have a project-wide habit of distinguishing between virtual and physical it seems that any use of paging currently in coreboot can only be a big ugly hack. :\ //Peter

3 2

Re: [coreboot] Friendly reminder: Please just send plain text messages to the list
by mrnuke 12 Mar '14

12 Mar '14

On Monday, March 10, 2014 08:54:12 AM ron minnich wrote: > I think what we need to do is make this thread continue until it has > consumed more space then one month's worth of HTML. > I think we're still in the bikeshedding of original request stage. First off, whining about usage of HTML because of one's mobile data plan: I don't care what data plan you have. When you come to a public list, you should be prepared to adapt to the needs of the community using that list, not the other way around. If enough people in said community had 30 MB data plans, and everybody only used mobile phones for emailing, then your request might sound half-reasonable. But seriously? 30 MB data plan? I didn't know they sell those anymore. I heard those were common in the bronze age. I have to really shop around to get anything less than 1GB. I admit, I just happen to have unlimited data (remember, we're in the space age now). I don't usually use a mobile connection to check my email, but when I do, it's because I'm bored. Seriously, don't use your mobile plan for reading html email if it's such a big issue for you. Remember, most people weren't even born when the bronze age ended. All in all, this request seems selfish, although based on a reasonable premise. Sure, HTML email sucks, and if what one really wants to do is convey information, then plaintext is the way to go. > :-) > [evil face] So, while I agree we don't really need HTML email for this list, it's a nice way to piss off people every once in a while. It's fun. And it's fun to sidetrack a thread whenever someone accidentally sends some HTML bits. > ron > I'd normally take this out of my emails, but it's more bits of data. Yay! > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Sam Kuper <sam.kuper(a)uclmail.net> wrote: > > On Mar 10, 2014 3:32 PM, "Björn Busse" <mail(a)baerlin.eu> wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 04:21:00PM +0100, Peter Stuge wrote: > > > > Corey Osgood wrote: > > > > > Can you please point me to when this became policy on the coreboot > > > > > mailing list? > > > > > > > > I think it's pretty much a common sense policy on every mailing list. > > > > > > +1, Also my understanding. > > > > The trouble with invoking "common sense" is that what constitutes it isn't > > universally agreed. > > I measure common sense compliance as the inverse of the number of people I piss off. It's always a relative measure, but a damn fine one. > > -- > > coreboot mailing list: coreboot(a)coreboot.org > > http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot More signatures!!!! [sidetrack] I've seen some really stupid signatures used on this list. My all-time favorite is something along the lines of "To think outside the box you really need to be intel inside". I have no idea how the guy using this thought this might even remotely be an intelligent thing to say (notice I spelled "intelligent" correctly, not "intel" which is a misspelling). Second on the list are people leaving their contact information in their signatures. Really? I have that in the "From:" field if I need to contact you. Truth be told, I haven't not contacted you because I didn't know how to reach you. You just aren't that likable. Alex

4 3

Re: [coreboot] I've turned on paging as a test
by mrnuke 12 Mar '14

12 Mar '14

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 08:03:04 AM ron minnich wrote: > On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 6:33 AM, Peter Stuge <peter(a)stuge.se> wrote: > > Do we want ACPI? > > We've had it for years. Do we want UEFI runtime services? They're required > for ARM V8 ;-( > Are you telling me something like linux will have to rely on said runtime services, or are those only required in order for your firmware to be certified? There goes the elegance of ARM down Crapper's hole. Alex

2 1

Re: [coreboot] I've turned on paging as a test
by Peter Stuge 12 Mar '14

12 Mar '14

ron minnich wrote: > I think the bigger question that we need to answer, now that we know > it's doable, is whether we want paging or not. We may not. Do we want block device drivers? Do we want SMP? Do we want processes? Do we want runtime service? Do we want ACPI? Do we want closed blobs? Do we want paging? ron minnich wrote: > We've gone backwards in some ways from when Linux was our bootstrap. I think the bigger question is what we want to do in the future. > I was hoping it would give us a more convenient way to cover > cache-disabled, write-back, and write-through ranges without > all the fuss of MTRRs. I never like quick solutions because they're usually not good. //Peter

2 1

Re: [coreboot] OT: Looking for commercial-friendly open-source hardware license
by Peter Stuge 12 Mar '14

12 Mar '14

David Hendricks wrote: > A bit off-topic, but I figured some people on this list may have experience > in this subject. I'm looking for a permissive license akin to BSD that > applies well to hardware projects (ie focuses more on patents than > copyrights) and is commercial-friendly so anyone can manufacture and sell > the original design as well as derivatives. Maybe CC-SA fits that. //Peter

1 0

Re: [coreboot] [Coreboot] About (re)flash BIOS utility
by Peter Stuge 12 Mar '14

12 Mar '14

yu chyuan fu wrote: > I successfully build coreboot.rom follow www.coreboot.org. Do those steps also include running "make crossgcc" ? That's important because many compilers are unable to build coreboot. > The FAQ page suggest use the universal flash utility called flashrom. > So, if i don't use flashrom utility write to flash chips , even my > coreboot.rom is good,it always can't work? It is not neccessary to use flashrom to write coreboot.rom to the flash. If you have another flash writing tool which writes the exact contents of coreboot.rom to a flash chip then that is equally suitable. It sounds like the problem might be that coreboot simply does not support the hardware platform you are testing it on. As already said, please mention which chipset and mainboard you are testing with. //Peter

1 0

← Newer
1
...
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
...
18
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

coreboot March 2014