Peter Stuge wrote:
On Sat, Jun 07, 2008 at 09:23:07PM -0700, Chris Kilgour wrote:
FYI - At this point I don't plan to submit any patches to gPXE as my approach is rather hackish and still experimental.
How do you think that a "proper" port of gPXE to coreboot differs from your approach?
Off-hand I would say:
1. The gPXE elfprefix is currently busted, it would be preferred to fix that so gPXE might build a well-formed ELF on its own. At first I tried to fix it but gave up because of #2 below. 2. The "gPXE way" of producing final images is all about feeding a universal linker script, and I couldn't find a way of modifying it (trimming 16-bit code, getting the elfprefix right) to produce what I wanted without massive surgery that would affect a ton of regression cases. So I went the "treat gPXE as a library" route instead. 3. I'm not sure if all the 16-bit gPXE stuff really needs to be omitted or if it can/should be left in the ELF. I didn't want it, but others might.
I also don't have the bandwidth to deal with getting a patch morphed into shape that the gPXE maintainers would accept, but I welcome anyone with such inclinations to take the baton.
Chris.