[COMMIT] Infrastructure Updates 4

Stefan Reinauer stepan at suse.de
Mon Sep 8 09:04:00 CEST 2003


* ron minnich <rminnich at lanl.gov> [030904 17:49]:
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
> 
> > I agree.. but right now there are still Config.lb files in the mainboard
> > and in the targets directory. And at least last time I checked both were
> > used.
> 
> possibly I am missing your point. What bits did you want to see in 
> mainboard/Config.lb that are in the target?

There are some things that are in both Config.lb files. Some of these
make sense as a board default that gets overwritten by the image config
file, keeping the idea in mind that whoever builds an image for a
certain mainboard has to change/create a targets/ Config.lb, but does
not have to care about the mainboards/Config.lb. When porting LinuxBIOS
to a new board for a known platform, it should be the other way round.

Still, I am uncertain what belongs where ...

uses XIP_ROM_SIZE
uses XIP_ROM_BASE
[..]
option CONFIG_CHIP_CONFIGURE=1
option CPU_FIXUP=1
option CONFIG_UDELAY_TSC=0
option i686=1
option i586=1
option INTEL_PPRO_MTRR=1
option k7=1
option k8=1
option _RAMBASE=0x00004000

These are currently found in the arima targets-Config.lb but they seem
pretty much mainboard specific, not build specific. 

Left for the targets config file would be:
* console loglevels
* console output (serial, vga, ..)
* rom/ide streaming (is anything but rom streaming still supported?)
* fallback/normal image builds: size, payloads
* option table

Whats the difference between 
option FALLBACK_SIZE=131072
and the option
        option ROM_IMAGE_SIZE=0x10000

in the romimage "fallback" group? Both sound like they do similar
things.

I had trouble getting a build to work with a kernel (800k) in the normal
image and etherboot (~20k) in the fallback image. Do the payload image sizes
have to be the same for fallback and normal?

I'll investigate further..

  Stefan


-- 
Architecture Team
    SuSE Linux AG



More information about the coreboot mailing list