On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 11:23:51AM -0600, Marc Jones wrote: > > I still don't want coreboot to know about BIOS tables at all. > > > > Alas, it already does, there is both PIR and ACPI. > > Because they are required by Linux.
Wasn't that supposed to change though? Does anyone know what happened with the x86 device tree? > > Do we really want these BIOS tables to be created by coreboot? > > probably. > > > If yes, why shouldn't LegacyBIOS simply be included in coreboot? > > maybe but legacybios has a lot of things coreboot (for Linux) doesn't > need. They are required for other OS. Yep, but it is so nice to optimize them away when running Linux. > > I would much prefer if any and all table generation could be > > handled by LegacyBIOS or maybe another, separate, payload. > > Then that payload has to have the knowledge of every cpu, chipset, > and motherboard configuration to extract the information. That is > difficult which is why the OS leaves it up the the BIOS. It make > sense that the tables are generated and used by the configuration > code. We already have some if not all of this information in coreboot. I think the ideal would be to allow payloads to use all that information in a handy way, rather than only through BIOS tables. Seems this is our hot potato. //Peter -- coreboot mailing list [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
