On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Frank wrote: > You missed the point! Yes, I did miss the point (I should've read more closely).
> at u-boot and you'll find support for just about every PPC and > the number of drivers are abundant. I can port u-boot to a new > PPC based board in about 3 days tops. There is no way I can port > LinuxBios to a new X86 based board in that amount of time. I haven't looked at u-boot code much, so I cannot compare ease of porting to a new board. However, LB doesn't seem all bad in that area from where I stand. Of course it's going to be difficult if you switch architectures, but once the initial work is done it's a piece of cake. I was get an Iwill DK8S2 (Dual opteron board) running in less than 3 days simply by duplicating the Arima HDAMA (Another dual Opteron board) code and tweaking some config files, and I'm just a student working here and not some l33t hacker like Eric or Ron. No hacking on assembly code (Or even C code for that matter) was required. As far as architectures go, LinuxBIOS has run on Alphas, x86, x86-64, and now PPC. It's portable. And since freebios2 is took a huge leap in reducing the amount of assembly required to do a port, it should be easier now than it was before. On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Frank wrote: > not waste time trying to make it work for the PPC. If I wanted a > bootloader I would use u-boot not LinuxBios. I have heard of > other people abandoning LinuxBios and going to u-boot in that > past, just like I did... You ought to try FILO as a payload for LinuxBIOS. I think it accomplishes what you wanted a year ago ( http://www.clustermatic.org/pipermail/linuxbios/2003-June/003789.html ). > --- "Hendricks David W." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > IIRC, that's what Greg's addition of FILO for PPC was all > > about. > > > > On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Frank wrote: > > > > > Finally, someone has recognized the lack of support with > > > LinuxBios. About 6 months ago we decide to do an x86 based > > > project but abandoned it because of the lack of support for > > this > > > bootloader. The code is disorganized and in disarray as far > > as > > > I'm concerend. We were on a tight schedule and didn't have > > the > > > luxury of spending a lot of time trying to understand the > > code > > > layout. This was due in part to the lack of badly needed > > > documentation and code organization. We decided to base our > > > design on a powerpc and go with u-boot. > > > Hopefully by the time we decide to do cost reduced version, > > > LinuxBios will be usable for the masses and not just for an > > > elite group of people who assume everybody else uses the x86 > > for > > > everyday use.:-( > > > > > > --- Greg Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jun 8, 2004, at 7:59 AM, Stefan Reinauer wrote: > > > > > > > > > * Greg Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040608 15:22]: > > > > >> I think this is a reasonable idea, particularly your > > > > suggestion of > > > > >> making linuxbios more modular. One of my main beefs > > with > > > > the payload > > > > >> strategy is that each payload has to provide it's own > > set > > > > of, > > > > >> potentially buggy, driver code. If we have 5 payloads > > then > > > > we have 5 > > > > >> sets of drivers that all do the same thing slightly > > > > differently. If > > > > >> the > > > > >> drivers were modular enough so that a payload could > > call > > > > them > > > > >> directly, > > > > >> then this would go a long way to addressing these > > concerns. > > > > > > > > > > As far as I can tell the only drivers involved would be > > > > output drivers, > > > > > ie. video output and serial output. There the extensible > > > > LinuxBIOS > > > > > table > > > > > could come into play. The video driver could store a > > pointer > > > > to the > > > > > framebuffer, the resolution and maybe even a font, to > > save > > > > duplicates. > > > > > Serial is only a kilobyte or so of a driver i think. > > > > > > > > > > Have I forgotten something? > > > > > > > > > > > > > PCI device code and resource information should be > > available > > > > for > > > > payloads to use. A payload should not have to re-probe for > > > > devices on > > > > the PCI bus. > > > > > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Linuxbios mailing list > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________ > > > Do you Yahoo!? > > > Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. > > > http://messenger.yahoo.com/ > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Linuxbios mailing list > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Linuxbios mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. > http://messenger.yahoo.com/ > _______________________________________________ Linuxbios mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
