[coreboot] [RFC]What to do with TINY_BOOTBLOCK?
stefan.reinauer at coreboot.org
Tue Oct 25 03:06:54 CEST 2011
On 10/24/11 3:15 AM, Patrick Georgi wrote:
> Therefore, I propose (http://review.coreboot.org/#change,320) to get
> rid of the "big bootblock" variant altogether. This might break some
> boards (silently: they still build, but they fail on boot), but at
> least it forces action to fix them.
> - one flag less to care about
> - more uniform feature set (big bootblock didn't support any fallback
> - more opportunities to clean out and simplify the build system and
> code - there are some crude workarounds to make both mechanisms work
> - Boards might be broken for a long time until someone tries them
> again. The visible result is that the boot fails early (ie. no error
> signalling at all, the system simply hangs, nothing visible).
I like the idea, but I would suggest the following:
We create an deprecated_boards_201110 branch which holds e.g. all romcc
boards, and drop them from the most current tree.
The code is still there, so we don't have to worry about removing
supported boards (or breaking them by accident), and if someone has such
a board and wants to bring it over, they're welcome to send a patch to
More information about the coreboot