[coreboot] When should we retire newconfig?

joe at settoplinux.org joe at settoplinux.org
Fri Jan 8 01:09:19 CET 2010

On January 6, 2010 at 12:03 PM Patrick Georgi <patrick at georgi-clan.de> wrote:

> Hi,
> With r5000 all boards build with kconfig. The last step of the
> build&config project is to eliminate the old system so we're down to one
> method of building an image.
> What issues remain before we can remove newconfig from the tree?
> My list currently contains:
> * Kconfig must match newconfig for all boards, as appropriate.
> The automatic KBuild report on the list (which can be regenerated
> locally by running util/kbuildall/kbuildall) gives some indication on
> how much work is left in that area.
> * More testing
> I'm not sure how many boards and chipsets were successfully run with a
> kconfig image recently.
> * Fallback/normal switch
> While the hard part in code is done for the switch (via tinybootblock),
> there are some issues left. kbuild always builds just one image, not two
> as would be necessary to build fallback/normal in a single pass.
> Question is, do we want that?
> In my opinion, it's more sensible to have a way to add to and update an
> existing coreboot image, and expect users who rely on fallback/normal to
> build twice (into the same image), with an appropriate configuration for
> each run.
> Either way, this requires support in the build system (either to update,
> or to build twice in one go), and some alternative tinybootblock routine.
> * Documentation
> I'll try to work out some documentation for the new config system and
> code flow (esp. tinybootblock).
> Apart from that, with kconfig, many of the build tutorials on the wiki
> will be outdated.
Hello Patrick,
Are there any boards that have completely crossed over that I can look at for an

Joseph Smith

More information about the coreboot mailing list