On 16.06.2009 17:24, ron minnich wrote:
Committed revision 4357.
I changed the name v to start_address.
Thanks!
OK, next steps. We need what we have in v3 stage1 code, which is a call to the CAR code, then a jmp to the CAR disable code, then a jmp to the code that loads the RAM stages. I'll work on that. It will be in arch/i386/init, guess I'll call it rombootstrap.c.
Can't we just reuse the v3 code here with slight adaptations from LAR to CBFS?
The hope here is that we end up with a general pattern and process for cleaning up and moving to a more comprehensible CAR setup with the v3 improvements part of the picture.
Fixing up includes is a good idea.
Indeed.
I think we ought to not bring over the v3 stage numbering. I've gotten very mixed reactions to the stage1 etc. naming. It seemed like a good idea but in the end it did not seem that essential.
I'd really like to bring over stage naming from v3 to v2 (but I personally don't care that much about phase numbering, although numbers make it easy to find out execution order). Please let me explain why. I consider myself to be a coreboot developer with some knowledge of the codebase. However, although I have been looking at v2 code for over 2 years, I still have not figured out the code flow in v2 whereas v3 has really easy to follow code flow for stage1, initram and initial stage2. Granted, #include in stage0 was not really such a good idea in v3, but you fixed that part when porting to v2.
Sure, there are a lot of people who understand the v2 code easily, but for me the numbering in v3 was a lifesaver.
Just my two cents.
Regards, Carl-Daniel