[coreboot] Adding CAR support to v2
c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net
Tue Jun 16 18:27:56 CEST 2009
On 16.06.2009 17:24, ron minnich wrote:
> Committed revision 4357.
> I changed the name v to start_address.
> 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
> 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.
> 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.
More information about the coreboot