[coreboot] coreboot specific ACPI table
peter at stuge.se
Mon Apr 25 02:02:39 CEST 2016
Aaron Durbin via coreboot wrote:
> I feel like we likely want to define a ACPI table which has the
> coreboot specific data we care about:
> 1. coreboot tables base address and size.
Yes, unless the kernel absolutely can not find them any other way.
> 2. console base address and size.
> 3. ramoops info.
No. This, and everything else coreboot and coreboot users care about,
should be in coreboot tables.
Do not put a single thing into ACPI that is not absolutely neccessary.
Stefan Reinauer wrote:
> Since ramoops already has its own object in the DSDT, do we want to
> mention it here?
> What about other cbmem entries? coverage, timestamps...?
> Do we want a pointer to cbmem in there, instead?
In coreboot tables.
> Here's the 1 million dollar question: Do we want to get rid of coreboot
> table and only have a coreboot> specific table?
I absolutely do not want that. Maybe Google does. It's clearly not
desirable for coreboot to enter into a dependency on the UEFI Forum.
> it's not much harder
It's still the wrong thing to do.
> For ACPI OSes it might make things a bit easier (and counter the
> argument that coreboot requires "support for non-standard tables")
Too much politics.
Please invest effort into the proper solution; make it clear that
coreboot tables are very much standardized by the coreboot project,
and that they are a required standard for Chrome platforms.
Someone once told me that a standard is something with more than one
implementation. AFAIK ACPI only has a single compiler, so by that
logic ACPI is actually not a standard at all.
If kernel refuses coreboot then maintain a tight patchset for ODMs.
Kernel will take it once enough pressure has built up and if the
pressure never builds up you've failed anyway.
More information about the coreboot