Author: zbao
Date: 2009-11-13 07:43:33 +0100 (Fri, 13 Nov 2009)
New Revision: 4943
Modified:
trunk/src/cpu/amd/socket_AM2r2/Kconfig
Log:
Complete the Kconfig of socket_AM2r2.
This patch is from socket_F_1207, even though the fam10
can not be "make menuconfig"ed currently.
Signed-off-by: Zheng
Bao, Zheng wrote:
> Complete the Kconfig of socket_AM2r2.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zheng Bao
Acked-by: Peter Stuge
--
coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
This patch is from socket_F_1207. I need this to make my 780/700 board
building, even though the fam10 can not be "make menuconfig"(ed) currently.
Zheng
From: coreboot-boun...@coreboot.org [mailto:coreboot-boun...@coreboot.org] On
Behalf Of Zheng Bao
Sent
Other boards like 690/600 need to modify, don't they?
Zheng
-Original Message-
From: coreboot-boun...@coreboot.org
[mailto:coreboot-boun...@coreboot.org] On Behalf Of Bao, Zheng
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 12:07 PM
To: Stefan Reinauer; Myles Watson
Cc: Marc Jones; coreboot@coreboot.or
Great!!
It fixes the hanging on my board. And the display also works. Everything
seems to be fine.
Zheng
-Original Message-
From: coreboot-boun...@coreboot.org
[mailto:coreboot-boun...@coreboot.org] On Behalf Of Stefan Reinauer
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 5:30 AM
To: Myles Watson
Author: myles
Date: 2009-11-13 00:08:34 +0100 (Fri, 13 Nov 2009)
New Revision: 277
Modified:
buildrom-devel/config/payloads/Config.in
buildrom-devel/config/payloads/kernel.conf
buildrom-devel/config/payloads/lab.conf
buildrom-devel/packages/kernel/kernel.inc
buildrom-devel/scripts/M
Author: uwe
Date: 2009-11-12 21:06:32 +0100 (Thu, 12 Nov 2009)
New Revision: 4942
Modified:
trunk/util/cbfstool/common.c
Log:
Cosmetics (trivial).
Signed-off-by: Uwe Hermann
Acked-by: Uwe Hermann
Modified: trunk/util/cbfstool/common.c
==
Am 12.11.2009 19:44, schrieb Myles Watson:
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Patrick Georgi
wrote:
Am 12.11.2009 19:13, schrieb Myles Watson:
This patch saves 28K on my s2895, and 55K on qemu. Anybody have a
strong objection to that? Are we trying to have bootblock size be
constan
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Patrick Georgi
wrote:
> Am 12.11.2009 19:13, schrieb Myles Watson:
>>
>> This patch saves 28K on my s2895, and 55K on qemu. Anybody have a
>> strong objection to that? Are we trying to have bootblock size be
>> constant for each board? Does it mess up future pl
Am 12.11.2009 19:13, schrieb Myles Watson:
This patch saves 28K on my s2895, and 55K on qemu. Anybody have a
strong objection to that? Are we trying to have bootblock size be
constant for each board? Does it mess up future plans for backwards
compatibility?
Having a good automatic way to m
> Maybe better name would be bootblock-autorelocation-ldscript.patch
> in case if anyone would consider it as worth keeping etc,
> Signed-off Maciej Pijanka
This patch saves 28K on my s2895, and 55K on qemu. Anybody have a
strong objection to that? Are we trying to have bootblock size be
consta
> No, it just reports error and reboots so i spend some work to save as
> much space as possible and to make small filo to fit without lzma, but
> didn't finished that approach yet.
It's important in the general case for lzma to work, so if you're
interested in figuring it out, start a new thread a
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> s...@coreboot.org wrote:
>> +++ trunk/src/include/smp/spinlock.h 2009-11-12 16:38:03 UTC (rev 4939)
> ..
>> -/* Most GCC versions have a nasty bug with empty initializers */
>> -#if (__GNUC__ > 2)
>
> Maybe add
>
> #if __GNUC__ < 3
> #error S
On 12/11/2009, Myles Watson wrote:
>> I already posted this patch once, but maybe it was overlooked.
>> > but i found way that works for me (but it is somewhat ugly)
>> > (see patch in attachment)
> Since you said it was ugly and named it crude-ld-hack.patch, it might
> not have been reviewed.
Ma
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> s...@coreboot.org wrote:
>> +++ trunk/src/include/smp/spinlock.h 2009-11-12 16:38:03 UTC (rev 4939)
> ..
>> -/* Most GCC versions have a nasty bug with empty initializers */
>> -#if (__GNUC__ > 2)
>
> Maybe add
>
> #if __GNUC__ < 3
> #error So
s...@coreboot.org wrote:
> +++ trunk/src/include/smp/spinlock.h 2009-11-12 16:38:03 UTC (rev 4939)
..
> -/* Most GCC versions have a nasty bug with empty initializers */
> -#if (__GNUC__ > 2)
Maybe add
#if __GNUC__ < 3
#error Sorry, at least gcc-3 is needed to build coreboot.
#endif
?
//Pete
Author: myles
Date: 2009-11-12 18:46:59 +0100 (Thu, 12 Nov 2009)
New Revision: 4941
Modified:
trunk/util/cbfstool/common.c
Log:
Print size of file on cbfs_add_file failure. The size of the file after
compression is nice to know. Trivial
Signed-off-by: Myles Watson
Acked-by: Myles Watson
> I already posted this patch once, but maybe it was overlooked.
> > but i found way that works for me (but it is somewhat ugly)
> > (see patch in attachment)
Since you said it was ugly and named it crude-ld-hack.patch, it might
not have been reviewed.
> That
> already commited change plus this pa
Hello
I feel somewhat guilty for this ROMBASE problem as i was on irc
bugging about inability to move bootblock in chip and rom layout for
me was looking like
0-64k cbfs
64-128k bootblock, then empty space, then jump code
and empty space was about 20k
so i asked how i could change that to move b
Author: oxygene
Date: 2009-11-12 18:25:16 +0100 (Thu, 12 Nov 2009)
New Revision: 4940
Modified:
trunk/src/arch/i386/Kconfig
Log:
Adapt ROM_IMAGE_SIZE, too. ROMBASE should probably be defined
by ROM_IMAGE_SIZE (so ROM_IMAGE_SIZE + ROMBASE - 4GB == 0),
but that's for another patch.
Should fix th
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:16 AM, ron minnich wrote:
> Acked-by: Ronald G. Minnich
Rev 4939.
> Good plans on getting rid of warnings ...
Thanks,
Myles
--
coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Author: myles
Date: 2009-11-12 17:38:03 +0100 (Thu, 12 Nov 2009)
New Revision: 4939
Modified:
trunk/Makefile
trunk/src/Kconfig
trunk/src/arch/i386/boot/coreboot_table.c
trunk/src/arch/i386/include/arch/smp/spinlock.h
trunk/src/console/printk.c
trunk/src/console/vsprintf.c
trun
Author: myles
Date: 2009-11-12 17:20:04 +0100 (Thu, 12 Nov 2009)
New Revision: 4938
Modified:
trunk/util/romcc/romcc.c
Log:
Trivial debug print format string fix for romcc.
Signed-off-by: Myles Watson
Acked-by: Myles Watson
Modified: trunk/util/romcc/romcc.c
===
Acked-by: Ronald G. Minnich
Good plans on getting rid of warnings ...
ron
--
coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
I think we should be pushing down the number of warnings in our code
with the goal of being able to use -Werror for all of our boards.
It's possible that we should add -Wno-unused-function, since there are
lots of those warnings that would be hard to avoid, but it would help
us keep our size down i
Hi,
I've found a problem with the usage of SeaBIOS/gPXE in Qemu.
The scenario is when failing to boot from network and falling back to booting
from hard-disk (-boot nc).
The cause of the problem is that both SeaBIOS and gPXE (in it's installation
phase) uses same stack area, 0x7c00.
The gPXE code
Am 12.11.2009 16:42, schrieb Peter Stuge:
But, in any case, maybe the bootblock can be split up so that there
really only is a minimum (not 64k!) of stuff which needs to be near
fff0?
That's basically what failover does, and newfailover aims for.
Patrick
--
coreboot mailing list: core
Peter Stuge wrote:
> > I keep forgetting that the bootblock has to be < 64Kb so that the
> > start is reachable with a jump in 16-bit mode.
>
> Why does it not work to do e.g. jmp fffe:?
Is CS set up especially for the top 64k on reset? I've known this..
But, in any case, maybe the bootbloc
Myles Watson wrote:
> I keep forgetting that the bootblock has to be < 64Kb so that the
> start is reachable with a jump in 16-bit mode.
Why does it not work to do e.g. jmp fffe:?
> A larger bootblock makes it build but fails to boot.
Maybe that can be fixed. Or maybe not?
//Peter
--
co
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 8:00 AM, Patrick Georgi
wrote:
> Am 12.11.2009 15:56, schrieb Myles Watson:
>>>
>>> Reverting everthing would be overkill.. The only thing that negatively
>>> affects the build is the ROMBASE configuration in src/arch/i386/Kconfig,
>>> the
>>> other parts are fine.
>>>
>>>
Am 12.11.2009 15:56, schrieb Myles Watson:
Reverting everthing would be overkill.. The only thing that negatively
affects the build is the ROMBASE configuration in src/arch/i386/Kconfig, the
other parts are fine.
I'm looking for a way to keep ROMBASE functional that way (esp. to allow
smaller bo
> Reverting everthing would be overkill.. The only thing that negatively
> affects the build is the ROMBASE configuration in src/arch/i386/Kconfig, the
> other parts are fine.
>
> I'm looking for a way to keep ROMBASE functional that way (esp. to allow
> smaller bootblocks) while fixing the current
Am 12.11.2009 15:14, schrieb Myles Watson:
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 7:12 AM, Patrick Georgi
wrote:
I tracked it down. I'm sorry, but my tests worked for some reason. Working
on a fix now...
Should we revert it and then try again fresh?
Reverting everthing would be overkill.. The
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 7:12 AM, Patrick Georgi
wrote:
> Am 12.11.2009 14:49, schrieb Myles Watson:
>>
>> It works for you?
>>
>
> I tracked it down. I'm sorry, but my tests worked for some reason. Working
> on a fix now...
Should we revert it and then try again fresh?
I really think we need to
Am 12.11.2009 14:49, schrieb Myles Watson:
It works for you?
I tracked it down. I'm sorry, but my tests worked for some reason.
Working on a fix now...
Patrick
--
coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Am 12.11.2009 14:53, schrieb Zheng Bao:
> It is just me, or anyone has the building error like this.
> I don't that error when I buildtarget. It only happens when I make
> menuconfig.
Fam10 and Kconfig don't work together at this point because the romstage
is >64kb for Fam10.
Kconfig doesn't suppo
It is just me, or anyone has the building error like this.
I don't that error when I buildtarget. It only happens when I make menuconfig.
/home/baozheng/x86/coreboot-org/src/cpu/amd/model_10xxx/fidvid.c:42: warning:
'print_debug_fv_64' defined but not used
CC lib/cbfs.o
>>> For me, ROMBASE must be at 0xFFFE000, that is 4G - romchip size (128k).
>>> if i try to set it to anything else i get some errors while build like:
>>>
>> It broke for me too. I'm getting a 4GB bootblock. I should have
>> build/boot tested it.
>
> Are you guys using the util/crossgcc compiler
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 5:38 PM, ron minnich wrote:
> nice.
>
> Acked-by: Ronald G. Minnich
>
Rev 4937.
Thanks,
Myles
--
coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Author: myles
Date: 2009-11-12 14:48:39 +0100 (Thu, 12 Nov 2009)
New Revision: 4937
Modified:
trunk/src/arch/i386/boot/coreboot_table.c
Log:
Get rid of the ugly warning the right way.
Signed-off-by: Myles Watson
Acked-by: Ronald G. Minnich
Modified: trunk/src/arch/i386/boot/coreboot_table.
40 matches
Mail list logo
