ron minnich wrote:
I'm not really happy that we're doing all this PIC setup for one OS,
It's not for one OS, Ron. PIC setup is part of the PC legacy.
Please remember that coreboot is more than Chrome OS' firmware of choice.
It's been quite some time since I've had to use PIC mode at all.
Thanks to the efforts of Paul and Scott we were using it quite a bit at LinuxTag. KolibriOS booting from flash in a blink of an eye is an impressive demo. You should try it in qemu. It makes the coreboot point extremely clear, and was quite a valuable things to have.
Why can't the Kolibrios just use modern standards?
Please stay on point; PC firmware. Another way to explain what I mean is with a counter-question:
Why shouldn't coreboot do legacy initialization? What is the reason to be *less* compatible than possible?
It's bizarre, to say the least, to be booting a kernel written in assembly from firmware written in C.
I think it makes a lot of sense. It demonstrates how complexity has shifted from OS into firmware over the decades.
I find it hard to believe that we want this patch.
I want this patch and more. I want a data and API model within coreboot which allows common code for the three reporting mechanisms to call platform-specific code to program them automatically, when the respective tables have been enabled by Kconfig. They need to be enabled by default and perhaps hidden behind CONFIG_EXPERT.
Scott Duplichan wrote:
This is needed for all operating systems that support PIC mode. For example, Ubuntu 13.10 with boot option acpi=off fails. With the attached revised patch, it works.
To me it's a no-brainer to accept this patch and build on it. This is an important aspect where coreboot does a much worse job than it could, for no real reason.
It is OK with me to take no action on the patch.
I disagree. I think this is a very important patch. Thank you.
the patch is here in the mailing list archives, and anyone who really wants PIC mode will find it. The patch probably needs sanitization and additional testing anyway.
I would love for this patch to be pushed to Gerrit. Scott, can you do that easily, or would you prefer if I do it?
I want you as the author to give a +2 before it is submitted. If this policy hasn't already been implemented then a workaround is for you to give a -2 immediately after pushing the commit.
Thank you!
//Peter