Hi, Paul
在 2013-04-29一的 10:47 +0200，Paul Menzel写道：
Am Montag, den 29.04.2013, 10:19 +0200 schrieb Paul Menzel:
Am Sonntag, den 28.04.2013, 20:21 -0700 schrieb ron minnich:
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko phcoder@gmail.com wrote:
Could we have a sane discussion about why it's not suitable for this or that scenario and what would need to be fixed? Not just quasi-fanatical "I don't want it".
I guess I missed the part where not wanting something was considered insane.
[…]
Could you all please read what Vladimir actually wrote and not put something in his mouth!
»You need something as GRUB for it since the chip is too small to hold a kernel anyway.«
The »something« makes a difference.
He just informed Guang, that he needs a payload, which Guang did not consider yet. As Vladimir already knows coreboot due to his X201s work and dealt with Loongson I find it very nice of him to share his opinion.
Guang, from all of the respondents I probably are the most inexperienced one, so my answers might be incorrect. One of the strong points of coreboot is its PCI initialization framework, the ability to configure it with Kconfig and the ability to customize it
Loongson platform be designed mostly like a PC, it also control PCI devices.
because of the payload concept, where coreboot only initializes only the minimum of the hardware and a payload, like SeaBIOS, FILO and GRUB, can take over.
I'm not quite clear about code flow between bootblock and payload for now, so, is there some document about it? or can you give some hints for code flow? Thanks!
As I do not know the Loongson/MIPS architecture, I have no idea if the coreboot “framework” is suitable or not for it. From coreboot’s perspective it would be nice if you could spend the time trying to do a Loongson/MIPS port. I also cannot remember if that has been tried in the past.
seems there's no conflict with coreboot's framework.
Thanks,
Paul