On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 06:17:53PM +0200, Patrick Georgi wrote: > Am 05.05.2009 17:24, schrieb Myles Watson: >> I think we can put off the decision if we insert CBFS code to find the >> normal image and jump to it. > My next step is to make copy_and_run cbfs aware. That would push the > coreboot_ram part of both stages into cbfs already, significantly > decreasing the bootblock size. > > It's a low hanging fruit given that copy_and_run is a single code path > now, and that at this time of the boot process, RAM is available.
Thanks - that would be great to see. What are your plans with lzma decoding? (Will the bootblock have an lzma decoder for deploying coreboot_ram and will coreboot_ram have an lzma decoder for the payload?) > Unless you really want to put the remaining fallback/normal code into > cbfs, in which case that work would be useless. I really like the idea > of using %cs, if it's known to be stable. SeaBIOS must deal with %cs modifications, so I'm familiar with using it. However, it's not clear to me what coreboot needs it for. Can someone point me to a discussion on the problems with PIE? -Kevin -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
