it is nice to see that so many people like the idea ... :) back to basics. my suggestion was to have a list and perhaps a utility that allows coreboot/flashrom to collect chip data from various box in the hope to seek out easy targets and give the developers a new incentive.
I do not thing that the myriad PC boards need that much support. A very interessting target could the std. desktop PC deployed by companies (DELL,HP, etc ..) That would open a whole new area: a desktop PC that boots linux instandly. Since journey starts with the first step and coreboot simply need a database about deployed systems and there chipsets. To get many users as possible to submit data a *simple* script is need that collect the informations and sends it directly to coreboot.org. Next question: who will write that script ? re wh Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > On 06.06.2008 15:08, Ludwig Jaffe wrote: >> Lets rewrite / improve flashrom! >> > > A rewrite is unneccessary. Improvements are welcome. > >> I would like to see an universal function-pointer approach for the >> flash-dev handling, as I stated before in this mailing list. >> > > We already have that. > >> For detection of flash the flash-identification according to the >> manufacturers can be used, so all functionpointers for the >> detect-routines can be tried. >> > > We already do that. > >> To detect the mainboard I would additionally suggest looking for strings >> in the bios (if original-bios is used). > > Sorry, that will not work reliably. We have some known false positives > and some known false negatives. > >> For Coreboot, I would suggest to >> have a short text with manufacturer, board model, chipset, cpu so string >> search can find something. >> > > We already have strings with board manufacturer+model. Chipset and CPU > strings do not make sense. > >> Not to fall over all garbage the string search has to be filtered with >> known names as compaq, hp, ibm, asus, phoenix, award, and the like. >> >> Using DMI is better for newer boards having DMI. >> > > Sorry, that will not work reliably. We have some known false positives > and some known false negatives. > >> So one can build different strategies for identifiing the mainboard. And >> use a functionpointer approach to do special tasks for the boards >> e.g. switching the bios to flash (some boards have a 2 bios-sockets) >> > > We already do that. > >> e.g. unprotecting the boot-block. (e.g. my compaq SFF PC needs P34 >> soldered in and closed.) So an appropriate text has to be printed, if the >> board can not automagically disable write-protection etc. >> e.g. do other fancy stuff like unlocking the case. >> > > We already can do that if anyone commits a text message. > >> Who is in charge for flashboot? >> > > Do you mean flashrom? If so, your patches can be reviewed by the list. > >> We should organize and manage the change-requests for that little piece >> of soft. >> > > Please post patches. We can discuss them. > > > Regards, > Carl-Daniel > > -- coreboot mailing list [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
