status information

Li-Ta Lo ollie at
Thu Oct 28 13:38:01 CEST 2004

On Thu, 2004-10-28 at 08:14, Ronald G. Minnich wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > I will (hopefully) commit later today, but I have found one general
> > technique that will cut down the code size but a small amount.
> > In the chip_operations struct we have a name for debugging.
> > Since we are no longer printing that name there is no point in
> > keeping it.
> hmm, this sounds like a lot of potential pain for a small gain. Can we 
> talk about this a bit first. 

Some points I didn't make clear during the LNXI visit about the size 
problem are:

	1. Virtually no one is putting the kernel in the FLASH ROM,
	   people use CF instead. Every payload/bootloader we are
	   using can support that.
	2. The size of FLASH grows exponentially if there is no stupid
	   limitation such as address lines in DIP32 package. Currently
	   LinuxBIOS only grows linearly. 

So why can not we relax the 64kB limit of LinuxBIOS ? I do think 
removing the name of the device is a wrong direction.


More information about the coreboot mailing list