[coreboot] coreboot specific ACPI table

[Peter Stuge]

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.


> Thoughts?

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?

No.


> 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.


//Peter