On 28.01.2008 21:55, Marc Jones wrote: > > > Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: >> On 25.01.2008 19:17, ron minnich wrote: >>> On Jan 25, 2008 10:15 AM, Jordan Crouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Hmm - probably the right move, but the changes in buildrom are not >>>> trivial for v2. We would need to figure out what the ROM size is >>>> (by greping >>>> Config.lb, probably), compress the VSA, calculate the difference and >>>> pad. Its not impossible, but there is lots that can go wrong if we >>>> are not careful. >>>> >>> We need a VSA.v3 and leave the old one as before. VSA.v3 is just the >>> uncompressed VSA. >>> >> >> Fully agreed. Maybe pick another name (VSA.uncompressed or >> VSA.corebootv3.uncompressed), but let's simply add another download >> option, this time suited for v3. IIRC the VSA for v3 may also use some >> v3 infrastructure and be incompatible to v2 by definition. >> > > I disagree. We will have an uncompressed solution that will work for > both v2 and v3. VSA does simple hardware emulation so it should work > for both. We are working out the details for buildrom now. I will also > write down how to do it by hand on the wiki.
I was under the impression that VSA in v3 was using x86emu for BIOS INT services and using separate INT routines in v2. That's what led me to the conclusion about different VSAs for v2 and v3. Regards, Carl-Daniel -- coreboot mailing list [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
