LinuxBios PPC-support.. U-Boot project

[David Eliasson]

I read on the linuxbios webpage about PPC-support.. Aren t you guys
aware of the U-boot project? They ve been running the GNU Linux kernel
2.4.19 and 2.4 21 in firmware for a while now.. Maybe I m just missing
something, but I thought some merging of efforts might be in place..
http://sourceforge.net/projects/u-boot/

Regards

/David

[ron minnich]

On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, David Eliasson wrote:
> I read on the linuxbios webpage about PPC-support.. Aren t you guys
> aware of the U-boot project?

Sure.
> They've been running the GNU Linux kernel 2.4.19 and 2.4 21 in firmware
> for a while now.. Maybe I m just missing something, but I thought some
> merging of efforts might be in place..

I tried to have a conversation with somebody from u-boot about some sort
of merge, but it never got beyond the "why u-boot is better than
linuxbios" stage, so I dropped it.

ron

[Frank]

I have been porting u-boot to different processors for 2 years
and just started looking at linuxbios. IMHO, u-boot is ok if you
are bringing up hardware for the first time and you need an
intermediate stage to peek and poke the hardware before trying
to bring up Linux. With u-boot you get to a command prompt
before booting Linux so you can examine things and complete the
conguration code before bypassing the command prompt and going
directly to Linux. If your hardware is stable and you don't need
the command prompt then linuxbios is probably the best way to
go...

--- ron minnich  wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, David Eliasson wrote:
> > I read on the linuxbios webpage about PPC-support.. Aren t
>
> you guys
> > aware of the U-boot project?
>
> Sure.
> > They've been running the GNU Linux kernel 2.4.19 and 2.4 21
>
> in firmware
> > for a while now.. Maybe I m just missing something, but I
>
> thought some
> > merging of efforts might be in place..
>
> I tried to have a conversation with somebody from u-boot about
> some sort
> of merge, but it never got beyond the "why u-boot is better
> than
> linuxbios" stage, so I dropped it.
>
> ron
>
> Linuxbios mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

[Greg Watson]

At 3:47 PM -0600 23/6/03, ron minnich wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, David Eliasson wrote:
> > I read on the linuxbios webpage about PPC-support.. Aren t you guys
> >  aware of the U-boot project?
>
> Sure.
> > They've been running the GNU Linux kernel 2.4.19 and 2.4 21 in firmware
> >  for a while now.. Maybe I m just missing something, but I thought some
> >  merging of efforts might be in place..
>
> I tried to have a conversation with somebody from u-boot about some sort
> of merge, but it never got beyond the "why u-boot is better than
> linuxbios" stage, so I dropped it.

I spent some time looking at PPCBoot (now called u-boot) before I did 
the PPC port of linuxbios, but in the end I didn't use much. Most of 
the "hard" stuff came from another open source bios project called 
GBios, particularly the PCI code.

The major advantages that linuxbios has over u-boot is the 
flexibility it provides in configuration management, and now that it 
has been ported to 3+ architectures, the architecture dependencies 
are particularly well defined.

Greg

[Gregg C Levine]

Hello again from Gregg C Levine
I agree in principle Ron, but I am curious as to why they thought
that. After all, Linux BIOS does more for a system then U-Boot. It's
my guess that after seeing the appropriate demonstrations that group
will change their minds, collectively or otherwise. For that matter,
Greg W, I applaud your efforts regarding the PPC port.
-------------------
Gregg C Levine [e-mail]
------------------------------------------------------------
"The Force will be with you...Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi
"Use the Force, Luke."  Obi-Wan Kenobi
(This company dedicates this E-Mail to General Obi-Wan Kenobi )
(This company dedicates this E-Mail to Master Yoda )
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:linuxbios-
> [e-mail]] On Behalf Of ron minnich
> Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 5:47 PM
> To: David Eliasson
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: LinuxBios PPC-support.. U-Boot project
>
> On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, David Eliasson wrote:
> > I read on the linuxbios webpage about PPC-support.. Aren t you

guys
> > aware of the U-boot project?
>
> Sure.
> > They've been running the GNU Linux kernel 2.4.19 and 2.4 21 in

firmware
> > for a while now.. Maybe I m just missing something, but I thought

some
> > merging of efforts might be in place..
>
> I tried to have a conversation with somebody from u-boot about some

sort
> of merge, but it never got beyond the "why u-boot is better than
> linuxbios" stage, so I dropped it.
>
> ron
>
> Linuxbios mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios

[Frank]

As I said before, If you want to convert the u-boot users, you
have to provide an option to go to a command line instead of
just unconditionally booting linux. Getting to a command line is
not rocket science...

--- Gregg C Levine  wrote:
> Hello again from Gregg C Levine
> I agree in principle Ron, but I am curious as to why they
> thought
> that. After all, Linux BIOS does more for a system then
> U-Boot. It's
> my guess that after seeing the appropriate demonstrations that
> group
> will change their minds, collectively or otherwise. For that
> matter,
> Greg W, I applaud your efforts regarding the PPC port.
> Gregg C Levine [e-mail]
>
> "The Force will be with you...Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi
> "Use the Force, Luke."� Obi-Wan Kenobi
> (This company dedicates this E-Mail to General Obi-Wan Kenobi
> )
> (This company dedicates this E-Mail to Master Yoda )
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:linuxbios-
> > [e-mail]] On Behalf Of ron minnich
> > Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 5:47 PM
> > To: David Eliasson
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: LinuxBios PPC-support.. U-Boot project
> >
> > On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, David Eliasson wrote:
> > > I read on the linuxbios webpage about PPC-support.. Aren t
>
> you
> guys
> > > aware of the U-boot project?
> >
> > Sure.
> > > They've been running the GNU Linux kernel 2.4.19 and 2.4
>
> 21 in
> firmware
> > > for a while now.. Maybe I m just missing something, but I
>
> thought
> some
> > > merging of efforts might be in place..
> >
> > I tried to have a conversation with somebody from u-boot
>
> about some
> sort
> > of merge, but it never got beyond the "why u-boot is better
>
> than
> > linuxbios" stage, so I dropped it.
> >
> > ron
> >
> > Linuxbios mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
>
> Linuxbios mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

[Greg Watson]

Yes, and the nice thing about the linuxbios architecture is that the 
CLI can just be a payload, so you can have any CLI that you want - 
forth, tcl, whatever. No changes are required to linuxbios at all.

Greg

At 6:03 PM -0700 24/6/03, Frank wrote:
> As I said before, If you want to convert the u-boot users, you
> have to provide an option to go to a command line instead of
> just unconditionally booting linux. Getting to a command line is
> not rocket science...
>
> --- Gregg C Levine  wrote:
> > Hello again from Gregg C Levine
> >  I agree in principle Ron, but I am curious as to why they
> >  thought
> >  that. After all, Linux BIOS does more for a system then
> >  U-Boot. It's
> >  my guess that after seeing the appropriate demonstrations that
> >  group
> >  will change their minds, collectively or otherwise. For that
> >  matter,
> >  Greg W, I applaud your efforts regarding the PPC port.
> > Gregg C Levine [e-mail]
> >
> > "The Force will be with you...Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi
> >  "Use the Force, Luke."Ý Obi-Wan Kenobi
> >  (This company dedicates this E-Mail to General Obi-Wan Kenobi
> >  )
> >  (This company dedicates this E-Mail to Master Yoda )
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [e-mail] [mailto:linuxbios-
> > > [e-mail]] On Behalf Of ron minnich
> > > Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 5:47 PM
> > > To: David Eliasson
> > > Cc: [e-mail]
> > > Subject: Re: LinuxBios PPC-support.. U-Boot project
> > >
> > > On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, David Eliasson wrote:
> > > > I read on the linuxbios webpage about PPC-support.. Aren t
> >
> > you
> >  guys
> > > > aware of the U-boot project?
> > >
> > > Sure.
> > > > They've been running the GNU Linux kernel 2.4.19 and 2.4
> >
> > 21 in
> >  firmware
> > > > for a while now.. Maybe I m just missing something, but I
> >
> > thought
> >  some
> > > > merging of efforts might be in place..
> > >
> > > I tried to have a conversation with somebody from u-boot
> >
> > about some
> >  sort
> > > of merge, but it never got beyond the "why u-boot is better
> >
> > than
> > > linuxbios" stage, so I dropped it.
> > >
> > > ron
> > >
> > > Linuxbios mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
> >
> > Linuxbios mailing list
> >  [e-mail]
> >  http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
>
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxbios mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios

[Frank]

Interesting, I didn't know that. So I can write my own cli and
jump to it from LinuxBios instead of booting Linux?
--- Greg Watson  wrote:
> Yes, and the nice thing about the linuxbios architecture is
> that the
> CLI can just be a payload, so you can have any CLI that you
> want -
> forth, tcl, whatever. No changes are required to linuxbios at
> all.
>
> Greg
>
> At 6:03 PM -0700 24/6/03, Frank wrote:
> > As I said before, If you want to convert the u-boot users,
>
> you
> > have to provide an option to go to a command line instead of
> > just unconditionally booting linux. Getting to a command line
>
> is
> > not rocket science...
> >
> > --- Gregg C Levine  wrote:
> > > Hello again from Gregg C Levine
> > >  I agree in principle Ron, but I am curious as to why they
> > >  thought
> > >  that. After all, Linux BIOS does more for a system then
> > >  U-Boot. It's
> > >  my guess that after seeing the appropriate demonstrations
>
> that
> > > group
> > >  will change their minds, collectively or otherwise. For
>
> that
> > > matter,
> > >  Greg W, I applaud your efforts regarding the PPC port.
> > >
> > > Gregg C Levine [e-mail]
> > > "The Force will be with you...Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi
> > >  "Use the Force, Luke."� Obi-Wan Kenobi
> > >  (This company dedicates this E-Mail to General Obi-Wan
>
> Kenobi
> > > )
> > >  (This company dedicates this E-Mail to Master Yoda )
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: [e-mail]
>
> [mailto:linuxbios-
> > > > [e-mail]] On Behalf Of ron minnich
> > > > Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 5:47 PM
> > > > To: David Eliasson
> > > > Cc: [e-mail]
> > > > Subject: Re: LinuxBios PPC-support.. U-Boot project
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, David Eliasson wrote:
> > > > > I read on the linuxbios webpage about PPC-support..
>
> Aren t
> > > you
> > >  guys
> > > > > aware of the U-boot project?
> > > >
> > > > Sure.
> > > > > They've been running the GNU Linux kernel 2.4.19 and
>
> 2.4
> > > 21 in
> > >  firmware
> > > > > for a while now.. Maybe I m just missing something,
>
> but I
> > > thought
> > >  some
> > > > > merging of efforts might be in place..
> > > >
> > > > I tried to have a conversation with somebody from u-boot
> > >
> > > about some
> > >  sort
> > > > of merge, but it never got beyond the "why u-boot is
>
> better
> > > than
> > > > linuxbios" stage, so I dropped it.
> > > >
> > > > ron
> > > >
> > > > Linuxbios mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
> > >
> > > Linuxbios mailing list
> > >  [e-mail]
> > >  http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
> >
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> > http://sbc.yahoo.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Linuxbios mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

[Andrew Ip]

> Interesting, I didn't know that. So I can write my own cli and
> jump to it from LinuxBios instead of booting Linux?

I think Adam has done LinuxBIOS + Redboot before.

-Andrew

[ron minnich]

On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Frank wrote:
> Interesting, I didn't know that. So I can write my own cli and
> jump to it from LinuxBios instead of booting Linux?

absolutely. In essence, that's what etherboot does. See the bare metal 
toolkit for other interesting applications.

This is why the name 'linuxbios' gives us trouble. We've been trying to 
figure out if a name change would cause us more trouble, and so far the 
answer has been 'yes it will cause more trouble'.

ron

[Bari Ari]

ron minnich wrote:
> This is why the name 'linuxbios' gives us trouble. We've been trying to 
> figure out if a name change would cause us more trouble, and so far the 
> answer has been 'yes it will cause more trouble'.

If the situation changes, I parked  www.omniboot.org in case it's ever 
needed.

-Bari

[ron minnich]

On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Frank wrote:
> As I said before, If you want to convert the u-boot users, you
> have to provide an option to go to a command line instead of
> just unconditionally booting linux. Getting to a command line is
> not rocket science...

One option is to just take their command-line interpreter and make it a 
payload. I'd like to see someone try that.

ron

A command line is a key part of how we use our (now very old) version of 
linuxbios.  Though what we are using is from the dark ages, based on 
what I've seen linxbios become, I think that making a command line 
utility be a payload is the right solution.

Ty

ron minnich wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Frank wrote:
> > As I said before, If you want to convert the u-boot users, you
> > have to provide an option to go to a command line instead of
> > just unconditionally booting linux. Getting to a command line is
> > not rocket science...
>
> One option is to just take their command-line interpreter and make it a 
> payload. I'd like to see someone try that.
>
> ron
>
> Linuxbios mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios

[Bari Ari]

Gregg C Levine wrote:
> Hello again from Gregg C Levine
> I agree in principle Ron, but I am curious as to why they thought
> that. After all, Linux BIOS does more for a system then U-Boot. It's
> my guess that after seeing the appropriate demonstrations that group
> will change their minds, collectively or otherwise.

There was quite a bit of bickering on the U-Boot list at the time. 
Things seem to have settled down since last fall and theU-Boot list 
seems to be getting along now. Here are some snippets from last falls 
discussion about this:

LinuxBIOS was designed to use Linux to boot the OS of choice.
> > So was PPCBoot, but without excluding the resto of the world.
> So was LinuxBIOS, it currently also boots Plan9 and WinCE.

Bragging about each other's feats won't take us anywhere....
> > > > > > It uses some assembly to do some basic init and config and then jumps to
> > > > > > Linux to fully configure the rest of the system, after that LinuxBIOS
> > > > > > jumps to whatever OS kernel is wanted.
> > > > So your boot sequence is LinuxBIOS => Linux => LinuxBIOS => Target OS?
> >
> > LinuxBIOS (a few lines of assembly and then a Linux kernel) => TargetOS

That means in order to use LinuxBIOS on a platform, you first need to have at 
least a basic Linux Kernel that runs on that platform. Thus, if you want to 
port to a new platform, you have to struggle with interrupts, MMU 
initialization, caches, possibly DMA before you get *anything* to run. This 
approach makes perfect sense when the kernel is already there, but to *begin* 
porting at this level -- no thanks!
> > it also supports this boot sequence:
> >
> > LinuxBIOS (few lines of assembly and no Linux kernel)=> EtherBoot =>
> > TargetOS. Linux itself is basically not needed.

So where is the gain over e.g. Etherboot without LinuxBIOS ?

I believe it's safe to say that a _merge_ of PPCboot/ARMboot/Blob and 
LinuxBIOS is not going to happen. And rightly so IMHO since they are (valid) 
tools to solve different problems. Even an x86 port of PPCboot would make a 
lot of sense because nothing of this kind exists in the x86 world (at least 
not under GPL). This has been discussed here before (BTW: what's the status 
of the PPCboot/x86 project ?).

Of course the bootloaders contain code which the LinuxBIOS people might find 
useful to rip^H^H^Hre-use (and vice versa). This shouldn't be a problem since 
they are license compatible.

LinuxBIOS was designed to use Linux to boot the OS of choice.
> So was PPCBoot, but without excluding the resto of the world.

this is not the forum for PPCBoot vs. LinuxBIOS arguments. I Just Don't
Care. I am sure PPCBoot is wonderful software!
> > So your boot sequence is LinuxBIOS => Linux => LinuxBIOS => Target OS?

no. The boot sequence is:
- LinuxBIOS -> Linux -> OS (i.e. on Pink)
- LinuxBIOS -> 9load -> Plan 9
- LinuxBIOS -> Etherboot built in to linuxbios -> OS of choice
- LinuxBios -> Etherboot (external ) -> OS of choice

In other words, we have lots of boot sequences depending on the target
system and OS.

The issue of *BSD is not that we can't boot it. We can. The issue is that
*BSD wants to make BIOS calls we don't support.
> > Seems a bit overkill to  me.  Especially  in  systems  where  (flash)
> > memory  is  tight  it  might be a PITA to have to reserve space for a
> > Linux kernel just to initialize the hardware.

We Have Our Reasons. And, we don't always load linux in flash.
> > The current version of PPCBoot boots Linux, VxWorks, QNX, and NetBSD.

terrific! I'm happy for you. But this is not a competition.
> > It seems you do not know much about PPCBoot.

funny, as it seem syou don't know much about linuxbios. So we all need to
read more :-)
> > PPCBoot also provides powerful scripting capabilties; busybox' "hush"
> > shell has been integrated, so you can write standard shell scripts or
> > run  conditional  command  sequences  using  "if...then...else...fi",
> > "for...do...done", "while...do...done", "until...do...done", or using
> > shortcuts like "cmd1 && cmd2" or "cmd1 || cmd2".

I really don't much like firmware that starts taking on the attributes of
an OS, but to each his own. If you're going to put an OS in firmware, just
make it an OS, not a pseudo-OS. But that's just my opinion.

anyway, I am sure PPCBoot is wonderful, and we should be sharing code, not
getting out our rulers to see whose BIOS is bigger.

-Bari

[Frank]

u-boot's weakness is that it primarily supports arm and ppc
processors. There is only one x86 board in the source tree and
it won't even compile! If u-boot had more support for x86
platforms, it would give linuxbios a serious run for it's money.

--- Bari Ari  wrote:
> Gregg C Levine wrote:
> > Hello again from Gregg C Levine
> > I agree in principle Ron, but I am curious as to why they
>
> thought
> > that. After all, Linux BIOS does more for a system then
>
> U-Boot. It's
> > my guess that after seeing the appropriate demonstrations
>
> that group
> > will change their minds, collectively or otherwise.
>
> There was quite a bit of bickering on the U-Boot list at the
> time. 
> Things seem to have settled down since last fall and theU-Boot
> list 
> seems to be getting along now. Here are some snippets from
> last falls 
> discussion about this:
>
> LinuxBIOS was designed to use Linux to boot the OS of choice.
> > > So was PPCBoot, but without excluding the resto of the
>
> world.
> > So was LinuxBIOS, it currently also boots Plan9 and WinCE.
>
> Bragging about each other's feats won't take us anywhere....
> > > > > > >It uses some assembly to do some basic init and config
>
> and then jumps to
> > > > > > >Linux to fully configure the rest of the system, after
>
> that LinuxBIOS
> > > > > > >jumps to whatever OS kernel is wanted.
> > > > > So your boot sequence is LinuxBIOS => Linux => LinuxBIOS
>
> => Target OS?
> > > LinuxBIOS (a few lines of assembly and then a Linux kernel)
>
> => TargetOS
> > >
>
> That means in order to use LinuxBIOS on a platform, you first
> need to have at 
> least a basic Linux Kernel that runs on that platform. Thus,
> if you want to 
> port to a new platform, you have to struggle with interrupts,
> MMU 
> initialization, caches, possibly DMA before you get *anything*
> to run. This 
> approach makes perfect sense when the kernel is already there,
> but to *begin* 
> porting at this level -- no thanks!
> > > it also supports this boot sequence:
> > >
> > > LinuxBIOS (few lines of assembly and no Linux kernel)=>
>
> EtherBoot =>
> > > TargetOS. Linux itself is basically not needed.
>
> So where is the gain over e.g. Etherboot without LinuxBIOS ?
>
> I believe it's safe to say that a _merge_ of
> PPCboot/ARMboot/Blob and 
> LinuxBIOS is not going to happen. And rightly so IMHO since
> they are (valid) 
> tools to solve different problems. Even an x86 port of PPCboot
> would make a 
> lot of sense because nothing of this kind exists in the x86
> world (at least 
> not under GPL). This has been discussed here before (BTW:
> what's the status 
> of the PPCboot/x86 project ?).
>
> Of course the bootloaders contain code which the LinuxBIOS
> people might find 
> useful to rip^H^H^Hre-use (and vice versa). This shouldn't be
> a problem since 
> they are license compatible.
>
> LinuxBIOS was designed to use Linux to boot the OS of choice.
> > So was PPCBoot, but without excluding the resto of the
>
> world.
>
> this is not the forum for PPCBoot vs. LinuxBIOS arguments. I
> Just Don't
> Care. I am sure PPCBoot is wonderful software!
> > > So your boot sequence is LinuxBIOS => Linux => LinuxBIOS =>
>
> Target OS?
> >
>
> no. The boot sequence is:
> LinuxBIOS -> Linux -> OS (i.e. on Pink)
> LinuxBIOS -> 9load -> Plan 9
> LinuxBIOS -> Etherboot built in to linuxbios -> OS of choice
> LinuxBios -> Etherboot (external ) -> OS of choice
>
> In other words, we have lots of boot sequences depending on
> the target
> system and OS.
>
> The issue of *BSD is not that we can't boot it. We can. The
> issue is that
> *BSD wants to make BIOS calls we don't support.
> > > Seems a bit overkill to  me.  Especially  in  systems
>
> where  (flash)
> > > memory  is  tight  it  might be a PITA to have to reserve
>
> space for a
> > > Linux kernel just to initialize the hardware.
>
> We Have Our Reasons. And, we don't always load linux in flash.
> > > The current version of PPCBoot boots Linux, VxWorks, QNX,
>
> and NetBSD.
> >
>
> terrific! I'm happy for you. But this is not a competition.
> > > It seems you do not know much about PPCBoot.
>
> funny, as it seem syou don't know much about linuxbios. So we
> all need to
> read more :-)
> > > PPCBoot also provides powerful scripting capabilties;
>
> busybox' "hush"
> > > shell has been integrated, so you can write standard shell
>
> scripts or
> > > run  conditional  command  sequences  using
>
> "if...then...else...fi",
> > > "for...do...done", "while...do...done",
>
> "until...do...done", or using
> > > shortcuts like "cmd1 && cmd2" or "cmd1 || cmd2".
>
> I really don't much like firmware that starts taking on the
> attributes of
> an OS, but to each his own. If you're going to put an OS in
> firmware, just
> make it an OS, not a pseudo-OS. But that's just my opinion.
>
> anyway, I am sure PPCBoot is wonderful, and we should be
> sharing code, not
> getting out our rulers to see whose BIOS is bigger.
>
> -Bari

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

[ron minnich]

On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Frank wrote:
> u-boot's weakness is that it primarily supports arm and ppc
> processors. There is only one x86 board in the source tree and
> it won't even compile! If u-boot had more support for x86
> platforms, it would give linuxbios a serious run for it's money.

yeah but why do it this way. With the openbios guys, we've ended up 
splitting the work: linuxbios does the cruft, openbios does the forth 
stuff. IF uboot wants that command interpreter, why not combine forces and 
make the CLI a payload, and linuxbios sucks in all that good u-boot cpu 
stuff.

seems like we'd get twice as far.

ron

[Frank]

Very good idea...
--- ron minnich  wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Frank wrote:
> > u-boot's weakness is that it primarily supports arm and ppc
> > processors. There is only one x86 board in the source tree
>
> and
> > it won't even compile! If u-boot had more support for x86
> > platforms, it would give linuxbios a serious run for it's
>
> money.
>
> yeah but why do it this way. With the openbios guys, we've
> ended up 
> splitting the work: linuxbios does the cruft, openbios does
> the forth 
> stuff. IF uboot wants that command interpreter, why not
> combine forces and 
> make the CLI a payload, and linuxbios sucks in all that good
> u-boot cpu 
> stuff.
>
> seems like we'd get twice as far.
>
> ron

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

[Stefan Reinauer]

* ron minnich  [030625 19:22]:
> yeah but why do it this way. With the openbios guys, we've ended up 
> splitting the work: linuxbios does the cruft, openbios does the forth 
> stuff. IF uboot wants that command interpreter, why not combine forces and

I've gotten OpenBIOS a bit further last weekend, seperating architecture 
dependent and independent code and getting the dictionary from a fixed
address in flash. Still missing is the code to load the forth dictionary
right from an elf segment.
On the interpreter front I have all the forth words working that are
needed for the interpreter, and the interpreter loop already reads and
outputs things, but thats about it. 
Being busy with LinuxBIOS during the week made me enjoying the sun
rather than my suns on the weekend :-)

Stefan

Frank  writes:
> u-boot's weakness is that it primarily supports arm and ppc
> processors. There is only one x86 board in the source tree and
> it won't even compile! If u-boot had more support for x86
> platforms, it would give linuxbios a serious run for it's money.

There is also the fact that all of the platforms U-Boot runs
on appear to be very simple ones.  No complicated
SPD base memory initialization, etc.

LinuxBIOS supports much more complicated hardware.

That is the other reason for the design skew.  If you can write
proper memory initialization code in a day.  You can put it in
your bootloader.  If it takes a week or two, separating board
initialization and your bootloader makes a lot more sense.

Eric

[Frank]

No, I beg to differ. I have ported u-boot to more then one ppc
based platform. Thye do have SPD support. I ported over to the
ppc750fx (with a Marvel 64360 system controller) and the 440gp
based platforms
--- "Eric W. Biederman"  wrote:
> Frank  writes:
> > u-boot's weakness is that it primarily supports arm and ppc
> > processors. There is only one x86 board in the source tree
>
> and
> > it won't even compile! If u-boot had more support for x86
> > platforms, it would give linuxbios a serious run for it's
>
> money.
>
> There is also the fact that all of the platforms U-Boot runs
> on appear to be very simple ones.  No complicated
> SPD base memory initialization, etc.
>
> LinuxBIOS supports much more complicated hardware.
>
> That is the other reason for the design skew.  If you can
> write
> proper memory initialization code in a day.  You can put it in
> your bootloader.  If it takes a week or two, separating board
> initialization and your bootloader makes a lot more sense.
>
> Eric

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

Frank  writes:
> No, I beg to differ. I have ported u-boot to more then one ppc
> based platform. Thye do have SPD support. I ported over to the
> ppc750fx (with a Marvel 64360 system controller) and the 440gp
> based platforms

Oh interesting.  I still think LinuxBIOS runs on more challenging
platforms, but the dividing line seems to farther out than
I thought.

Eric