On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:20 AM, ron minnich <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Myles Watson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> b. Normal should be stored in CBFS, not concatenated into the bootblock. > > I would argue that fallback should also be in CBFS. Which is fine, but ... I agree. I just think that it can be a future step.
>> 2. Delete - Delete works on the assumption that you want contiguous files >> a. I'm not convinced that fixed CBFS areas will be simpler than >> ldscripts. I consider them both ugly. > > How are we going to support code that runs at a fixed address? I can > only come up with > these two options. I think the PIE stuff from v3 is not an option: > we've been warned about > it for a while now, and I now believe the warnings. I wish I knew the best answer here. >> 4. Geode ROM handling in CBFS. >> a. It would be nice to change the code so that it doesn't have to >> be in a fixed location (maybe via a copy to RAM?) >> >> I guess the short version is that I'd like to keep all the ugly >> details in the bootblock and peel them out one at a time. I think >> we'll break fewer boards that way. I feel like we've been lucky to >> catch some of the little glitches lately, and we've had help from >> people being willing to bisect. > > good points. But, we're at step 1b and we need to make a decision. Our > current decision, by default, is 'use ldscripts to create fallback and > normal images, not cbfs'. I think we can put off the decision if we insert CBFS code to find the normal image and jump to it. > If you look at how the normal symbol is created in the fallback image, > I don't see that fixed-location cbfs files are any uglier ... It's ugly. I hope that adding normal images in CBFS without changing fallback will help us see the pathway forward. Myles -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
