Am 16.05.2011 01:42, schrieb Peter Stuge: > Talking to a lot of visitors at LinuxTag it is absolutely clear that > this is an example of what should actually be an NVRAM option. > > Do we have some policy for where to place an option? I don't think we > do. Do we want to create one? My idea for a long term plan: - move most stuff to NVRAM - allow defaults in NVRAM config (per chip component) - allow boards to override these defaults - allow boards to lock down options (so they're compiled out in our code and present as "hard coded values" in cbtable) - probably/eventually: allow user to change defaults/lock them down in Kconfig
That way we can make everything flexible, yet lock down options that make no sense (eg. disable IDE/SATA option on boards with IDE function on chip but no connector on board). The hard part will be (again) how to extend Kconfig, and I guess this will require automatic Kconfig file creation (ie. Makefile magic). But since this is the last step (right after Infrastructure Projects/CMOS), this can wait. Patrick -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
