Hi,
Stefan Reinauer wrote:
So you're teaching FILO how to act like a BIOS.
I will fight that patch hard. I'm afraid I think this design is completely misguided.
Citing Jordan:
Indeed - lets stop trying to beat up Joseph and let him write some code.
My point which I hope came through in the end was that BIOS behavior is already available with coreboot by way of SeaBIOS, so I don't think it is very good to add it to more places because they will not be as good as SeaBIOS are.
Same reasoning as for consolidating option ROM init to use SeaBIOS rather than a bunch of interrupt services in coreboot code.
If you want BIOS behavior, just use a BIOS.
Oh do we start sending people away with their ideas now?
No, didn't mean to say that. s/a BIOS/SeaBIOS/
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
Stop wasting time on BIOS things.
Let me quote Jordan Crouse with a statement that fits perfectly into this discussion:
There is no one true load method. If [...] is willing to do the work, then it is something that should be considered. It makes nothing obsolete and it makes coreboot more useful. It is hard to object to that.
I don't agree that adding BIOS behavior to FILO would make FILO more useful. Quite the opposite.
I think it would be better to keep BIOS behavior in a single place, and have it be really excellent there. I think that place is SeaBIOS.
FILO can instead be a playground for completely new things, better than BIOS, if we can think of any. I know I want to try! :)
Yes, that is much more long term than "boot my box today" (i.e. boot my box like a BIOS) - please use BIOS compatibility (SeaBIOS) for that.
SeaBIOS is not getting enough credit, it is a really awesome project.
//Peter