On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 02:55:54PM +0100, Stefan Reinauer wrote: > Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: >> The most ideal course of action would be to fit coreboot v3 and your ADLO >> effort together. The design of v3 is still flexible and maybe we can stuff >> a payload library in v3 which has functionality like generation of e820 >> tables etc. That would save payload authors from duplicating code >> needlessly. >> > I wonder whether we would want to create e820 tables directly in coreboot, > instead of putting it into a payload library. > It's something every OS needs, and requiring a payload to call a function > like "make_e820_from_cbtable()" unconditionally makes little sense. As a > comparison, we don't leave pirq, mptable and ACPI to the payload, either.
I think it would be great if coreboot built the e820 info. I do wonder... if coreboot builds pirq, mptable, ACPI, and e820 tables. Why not have it also populate that other bios "table" - the 64K one at 0xf0000-0xfffff? -Kevin -- coreboot mailing list [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
