[coreboot] fallback/normal support [PATCH]Remove non-CBFS

Patrick Georgi patrick at georgi-clan.de
Sat Oct 3 20:51:12 CEST 2009

Am Samstag, den 03.10.2009, 20:03 +0200 schrieb Peter Stuge:
> > Because you either introduce a dependency on ROMCC or you need
> > additional assembler code.
> I love Patrick's idea about generating macros from cmos.layout. With
> that, the additional assembler code would amount to maybe 15
> instructions. Far from painful to me.
The thing is, there's code that isn't that pretty in assembly. K8 HT
init comes to mind (necessary for rom mapping), so there is a use case
for romcc in that model anyway.

But that isn't all that bad in my opinion:
1. we had much more trouble with gcc than with romcc.. If anything, gcc
has to go ;-)
2. We're talking about a tiny piece of code here. The smaller, the
better, so that even good, slow, unscalable romcc won't be too much of a
3. We'll be using romcc for various projects anyway (eg. serialICE) -
it's far from that, so we can use it where appropriate.

We have issues with romcc currently because we use it on a large set of
files from many separate parts of the tree (the various bridges etc),
and suffer from its constraints.

What I don't know is, do we require any chipset setup to _reach_ CMOS?
Accessing it will be trivial, no matter if assembly or romcc.


More information about the coreboot mailing list