> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Kevin O'Connor > Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 7:02 PM > To: Joseph Smith > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [coreboot] coreboot BIOSisms > > Hi Joseph, > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 08:46:07AM -0400, Joseph Smith wrote: > > > Given the above, I see two possibilities. > > > > > > The first involves having coreboot build the standard tables. > > > > Like I said why not just have a mini program between the two that > handles > > this operation. > > Where does this "mini program" get the data? It will face the same > issues I outlined in my previous email. > > >It could be added to coreboot or legacybios as an option > > module. The mini program would read the coreboot tables and what ever > else > > it needed and then set these tables up in a format that coresponds with > > legacybios, and finally passes the tables to legacybios. > > The coreboot table today does not provide sufficient information to > build the acpi/pir/mptable/smbios tables. > > We could extend the coreboot table - but what's the point of defining > our own intermediate format. For example, if the end consumer wants > an smbios table, why translate from "coreboot->coreboot > table->legacybios->smbios table" when we can just go from > "coreboot->smbios table"? > > >Does it have to be more complicated than that? > > Adding an additional program in between seems to make things more > complicated. > Just trying to help with the brain storming process. I am not in any way trying to make things more complicated. I just think It is going to take a lot of work, changing the coreboot core code. And very careful at that not to break the core code from using other payloads. That's why I am suggesting an option module.
Thanks, Joseph Smith Set-Top-Linux www.settoplinux.org -- coreboot mailing list [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
