Re: [coreboot] Porting coreboot to Intel Atom (Silverthorne) & SCH US15W (Poulsbo) chipset
There are several i945 + Atom boards available. This way you can develop and test Atom on a working chipset and then work on the US15W.
-Bari
Mansoor wrote:
Thanks bari and joseph for your sugession.I will use i945 code as reference
Regards Mansoor ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joseph Smith" joe@settoplinux.org To: "bari" bari@onelabs.com Cc: "Mansoor" mansoor@iwavesystems.com; coreboot@coreboot.org Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 7:45 PM Subject: Re: [coreboot] Porting coreboot to Intel Atom (Silverthorne) & SCH US15W (Poulsbo) chipset
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 08:56:06 -0500, bari bari@onelabs.com wrote:
Mansoor wrote:
Hi,
I have a Atom Silverthorne Poulsbo based board (http://www.iwavesystems.com/iW-Q7.htm). I want to port coreboot on this platform.
I would like to know if anybody has started/suceeded in porting coreboot to Atom, also if there is anyone interested in such a port.
There is lots of interest in Atom support. Nobody I am aware of has enough documentation yet. Maybe you do since you have an Atom based COM module? http://iwavesystems.com/iW-Q7.htm
1)Which version of coreboot can be used (v2 or v3) ? 2)Which platform (CPU,motherboard,EC) can be taken as reference ?
The i945 is supported by v2 so an Atom + i945 board would be the shortest path to success.
Yes, I would have to agree with Bari here. You should start with the i945 code.
-- Thanks, Joseph Smith Set-Top-Linux www.settoplinux.org
-- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
DISCLAIMER: This e-mail and any attachment (s) is for authorised use by the intended recipient (s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to the legal privilege of iWave Systems Technologies Private Limited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the originator immediately. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that you are strictly prohibited from retaining, using, copying, alerting or disclosing the content of this message. Thank you for your co-operation.
DISCLAIMER: This e-mail and any attachment (s) is for authorised use by the intended recipient (s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to the legal privilege of iWave Systems Technologies Private Limited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the originator immediately. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that you are strictly prohibited from retaining, using, copying, alerting or disclosing the content of this message. Thank you for your co-operation.
bari wrote:
There are several i945 + Atom boards available. This way you can develop and test Atom on a working chipset and then work on the US15W.
In my opinion, porting US15W may not be worthwhile, since it doesn't support the SPI bus which would allow use of SPI NOR flash. US15W supports FWH which Intel has already obsoleted, although It may have contracted with third parties to supply FWH devices for this chip set.
Also, this chipset almost requires an embedded controller to handle power and translate between FWH and SPI bus to support SPI NOR devices. Intel does offer a CPLD solution that avoids the use of the embedded controller, but the CPLD would only permit reading of the SPI NOR flash and absolutely no writing of it.
The US15W also has it own microcode updating that the BIOS/firmware must support.
The i945/ICH7M would be a far better final target for an Atom chipset and has none of the above mentioned issues. Of course you would need to use Diamondville Atom rather Silverthorne Atom in this case.
Good luck with your Poulsbo (US15W) port, assuming you are willing to spend 6-9 months on it. It could be more or less than that depending on the number of people working on it and their firmware experience.
Sincerely,
Ken Fuchs
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Ken.Fuchs@bench.com wrote:
The i945/ICH7M would be a far better final target for an Atom chipset and has none of the above mentioned issues. Of course you would need to use Diamondville Atom rather Silverthorne Atom in this case.
The problem with i945, from what I've read, is that the i945 chipset uses as much or perhaps more power then the CPU, which makes it less than ideal for low power embedded systems, especially battery powered ones e.g. nettops.
-Corey
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 19:51:59 -0400, Corey Osgood corey.osgood@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Ken.Fuchs@bench.com wrote:
The i945/ICH7M would be a far better final target for an Atom chipset and has none of the above mentioned issues. Of course you would need to use Diamondville Atom rather Silverthorne Atom in this case.
The problem with i945, from what I've read, is that the i945 chipset uses as much or perhaps more power then the CPU, which makes it less than ideal for low power embedded systems, especially battery powered ones e.g. nettops.
Looks like the ECS 945GCT-D might be a good starting choice. It looks like the SPI has a dip socket already :-)
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 00:39:30 -0400, Joseph Smith joe@settoplinux.org wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 19:51:59 -0400, Corey Osgood corey.osgood@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Ken.Fuchs@bench.com wrote:
The i945/ICH7M would be a far better final target for an Atom chipset and has none of the above mentioned issues. Of course you would need to use Diamondville Atom rather Silverthorne Atom in this case.
The problem with i945, from what I've read, is that the i945 chipset
uses
as much or perhaps more power then the CPU, which makes it less than ideal for low power embedded systems, especially battery powered ones e.g.
nettops.
Looks like the ECS 945GCT-D might be a good starting choice. It looks
like
the SPI has a dip socket already :-)
Or even the Jetway NF94-270-LF.
-
bari -
Corey Osgood -
Joseph Smith -
Ken.Fuchs＠bench.com