Re: FILO 0.4 [PMX:#]

[Greg Watson]

Correct. I haven't included linux_load, though it would probably be 
easy to do. FILO simply calls elfboot to load the image from a 
filesystem.

Merging FILO with etherboot is a fine idea, but it doesn't solve the 
loader problem for PPC. At this point I don't see any requirement to 
port etherboot to PPC, but if anyone would like to take it on then feel 
free. :-)

I think the case for including a simple FILO-like loader in linuxbios 
is a strong one. Apart from instant PPC loader support and reducing the 
difficulty of deploying linuxbios, it's possible to make use of much of 
the existing linuxbios code which significantly reduces duplication and 
complexity in the payload.

Greg

On 04/04/2004, at 2:57 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> Eric,
>
> Greg just move the fs support from filo to linuxbios, and create 
> fs_stream.
>
> It still calls the elfboot to load the elfimage in HD. And it doesn't
> support linux_load.
>
> So it is some kind of boot loader you said.
>
> It is really enhancement to ide_stream.c
>
> Regards
>
> YH
>
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Eric W. Biederman [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表 Eric W. Biederman
> 发送时间: 2004年4月3日 20:33
> 收件人: Greg Watson
> 抄送: Yinghai Lu; 'SONE Takeshi'; [e-mail]
> 主题: Re: g-e$: FILO 0.4 [PMX:#]
>
> Greg Watson  writes:
> > Yeah sorry, I kind of did that by stealth. Ron and I get lots of 
> > requests
>
> from
> > people wanting to use LB but who don't know how to deal with the 
> > payload
> > issue. We decided that it would be really nice to have a simple 
> > bootloader
>
> that
> > understands some basic filesystems built into LB. That way people can 
> > get
>
> going
> > without having to deal with etherboot or FILO directly. A nice side 
> > effect
>
> is
> > that it simplifies the FILO code significantly - in fact the only code
>
> that is
> > really required is the filesystem support. Also, another major plus is
>
> that the
> > code supports PPC as well as x86. Up to now I've had no bootloaders
>
> (etherboot
> > or FILO) that work on PPC.
>
> Then we refactor and make building the bootloader part of the tree.
> These things are policy engines.  We need to separate mechanism and 
> policy.
>
> As far as I can tell this level of support crosses the line.
>
> etherboot is portable and would not be hard to get running on ppc.
>
> Eric