[coreboot] Kconfig vs. devicetree vs. CMOS policy for options?

Corey Osgood corey.osgood at gmail.com
Tue May 17 06:44:24 CEST 2011


On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Anders jenbo <anders at jenbo.dk> wrote:
> Is there any benefit to actually disabling this stuff?
>
> Mvh Anders

Sometimes it's necessary, like in the case of disabling integrated
graphics to allow a PCI/AGP/PCIe card to work. Other times, like
disabling ps2 and floppy devices, it shaves a little time off bootup,
because neither coreboot nor the guest OS have to do init for
non-existent devices. Still others it's just convenient, like
disabling a problematic or slow onboard NIC or poor quality audio
device, again in favor of another board.

-Corey

>
> ----- Reply message -----
> Fra: "Andrew" <nitr0 at seti.kr.ua>
> Dato: man., maj 16, 2011 19:02
> Emne: [coreboot] Kconfig vs. devicetree vs. CMOS policy for options?
> Til: <coreboot at coreboot.org>
>
> 16.05.2011 19:31, Marc Jones пишет:
>>
>> 2. CMOS is not a good place for platform options either. It is good
>> for runtime options, but I don't think that there are many options for
>> users to change. What options users would change and how will they
>> change them? CMOS options could even go into the device tree.
>>
> IMHO device operation modes (for ex., AHCI/legacy IDE for SATA, LPT port
> modes, etc) should be in CMOS. Also switches for enabling/disabling
> devices (LPT, FDD, IDE/SATA, etc) should be in CMOS.
>
> --
> coreboot mailing list: coreboot at coreboot.org
> http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
>
>
> --
> coreboot mailing list: coreboot at coreboot.org
> http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
>




More information about the coreboot mailing list