On 25/01/08 10:39 -0700, Myles Watson wrote:
Jordan,
What benefit do we get from patching Config.lb instead of just copying a new
one into the directory? It seems like the same thing, only the complete
Config.lb would be more human readable.
I just thought that as long as you are
On 25.01.2008 18:58, Peter Stuge wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 10:55:24AM -0700, Myles Watson wrote:
I accidentally used an uncompressed payload with v2 when it
expected a compressed payload, and it gave me the message:
Decoder scratchpad too small!!
Decoding error = 1
Sorry Ron, this is not meant as a rant against you. The patch you posted
just fitted a pattern I'm seeing more and more often.
Our problem is that we try to handle copyright issues with perfection.
That sometimes causes us to go overboard with attributions.
On 25.01.2008 18:12, ron minnich wrote:
On Jan 24, 2008 3:23 PM, Peter Stuge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 03:43:31PM -0700, Marc Jones wrote:
For correctness do a read-modify-write of the ROM write-protect area.
Thank you.
Correctly disable the ROM area Write Protect bit in the Geode LX.
signed-off by:
Author: rminnich
Date: 2008-01-26 08:35:47 +0100 (Sat, 26 Jan 2008)
New Revision: 3078
Modified:
trunk/util/flashrom/chipset_enable.c
Log:
Correctly disable the ROM area Write Protect bit in the Geode LX.
Signed-off-by: Marc Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Acked-by: Peter Stuge [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ron minnich wrote:
how does stage 2 access LAR? The mem_file struct is an auto (local) for stage1.
void __attribute__((stdcall)) stage1_main(u32 bist)
{
int ret;
struct mem_file archive, result;
int elfboot_mem(struct lb_memory *mem, void *where, int size);
void
how does stage 2 access LAR? The mem_file struct is an auto (local) for stage1.
void __attribute__((stdcall)) stage1_main(u32 bist)
{
int ret;
struct mem_file archive, result;
int elfboot_mem(struct lb_memory *mem, void *where, int size);
void *entry;
You need
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 04:41:31PM +0100, Patrick Georgi wrote:
Am Freitag, den 25.01.2008, 16:37 +0100 schrieb Uwe Hermann:
If I get an ACK for the patch, I'll do steps 2 and 3 also, right after
comitting the patch.
How does that interact with those symbolic links in the cbv2 and cbv3
Am Freitag, den 25.01.2008, 16:37 +0100 schrieb Uwe Hermann:
If I get an ACK for the patch, I'll do steps 2 and 3 also, right after
comitting the patch.
How does that interact with those symbolic links in the cbv2 and cbv3
trees?
Regards,
Patrick Georgi
--
coreboot mailing list
See patch.
This is step 1 in a three-step commit:
1. Apply patch, commit.
2. Rename some files:
$ svn mv lxbios.c nvramtool.c
$ svn mv lxbios.1 nvramtool.c
$ svn mv lxbios.spec nvramtool.spec
$ svn ci
3. Rename lxbios directory:
$ svn mv lxbios/ nvramtool/
$ svn ci
The Call for Projects has been released.
http://www.linuxtag.org/2008/de/community/projects/cfpro.html
http://www.linuxtag.org/2008/en/community/projects/cfpro/call-for-projects.html
Applications must be in before February 21st.
I think we did OK last year, but if we do a bit more careful
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 03:43:02PM +0100, Uwe Hermann wrote:
Personally, I'm not convinced we want to do tarball releases at
all, not sure it's worth the hassle. Definately not real releases
as in flashrom 0.4.5 or so,
These are very good for distributions. Not all distributions can deal
with
Author: uwe
Date: 2008-01-25 16:08:37 +0100 (Fri, 25 Jan 2008)
New Revision: 3075
Modified:
trunk/util/lxbios/COPYING
trunk/util/lxbios/ChangeLog
trunk/util/lxbios/DISCLAIMER
trunk/util/lxbios/Makefile
trunk/util/lxbios/README
trunk/util/lxbios/cmos_lowlevel.c
Hi Philipp,
On 25.01.2008 12:50, Philipp Marek wrote:
My question is this. I'd like to secure machines against the
people that should work with them [1].
Ah. Classic DRM.
In most BIOSes I can set the boot order to harddisk only.
(coreboot too, right?). That doesn't help if someone has
Author: oxygene
Date: 2008-01-25 20:31:26 +0100 (Fri, 25 Jan 2008)
New Revision: 3077
Modified:
trunk/coreboot-v2/targets/buildtarget
Log:
bsh/ksh-clone and make(1)-syntax don't go well together
(unlike 5 lines later where make syntax is emitted into a file)
Signed-off-by: Patrick Georgi
Author: oxygene
Date: 2008-01-25 19:28:18 +0100 (Fri, 25 Jan 2008)
New Revision: 3076
Modified:
trunk/coreboot-v2/src/arch/i386/boot/coreboot_table.c
trunk/coreboot-v2/src/include/boot/coreboot_tables.h
Log:
This patch adds a new record type for lbtable to provide information
about a serial
On Jan 25, 2008 10:07 AM, Peter Stuge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We were discussing an overlay config - that is applied after the
current Config.lb if specified in an environment variable. Is that
still interesting? Would it solve the problem? I think that's a quick
hack, I could take a look.
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 10:44:38AM -0700, Jordan Crouse wrote:
I agree with all of this. We should switch to complete Config.lbs
for v2.
Also, the reason why I haven't submitted my patch is that
buildtarget is still broken for -fno-stack-protector (as per a
previous email), and I figured
On Jan 25, 2008 10:04 AM, Uwe Hermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, this one is per-board instead of per-chipset, but well...
I think we need to get per-chipset settings into per-chipset Kconfigs.
Anything else is going to drive us totally crazy :-)
Let's fix this thing I did which is broken
How about this? Seems to work, or at least it builds for me.
Index: mainboard/pcengines/Kconfig
===
--- mainboard/pcengines/Kconfig (Revision 560)
+++ mainboard/pcengines/Kconfig (Arbeitskopie)
@@ -31,6 +31,7 @@
select
attached
Add Kconfig files for the northbridge. Currently we only need this for the geodelx,
so we can select nrv2b decompression.
This has been tested in build and behaves as we want it to: nrv decompression
is enabled and the code compiled in.
Signed-off-by: Ronald G. Minnich [EMAIL
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 09:55:30PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
I just implemented release tarball generation (with ChangeLog
generation) in the enclosed patch for flashrom's Makefile, diffed
against SVN.
Please send all patches with a Signed-off-by, otherwise we cannot
commit. See
2008/1/14 Uwe Hermann [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
here's a repost of a patch from last year which has not yet been
comitted. See discussion starting at
http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2007-December/028076.html
for details.
The code works well enough to be committed IMO, some issue
Hello everybody!
First I have to admit that while I occasionally followed the
progress of LinuxBIOS I don't really know that much about it,
so please forgive me if that discussion is already over and
done with.
My question is this. I'd like to secure machines against the
people that should work
Hi,
see attached patch
Regards,
Patrick Georgi
bsh/ksh-clone and make(1)-syntax don't go well together
(unlike 5 lines later where make syntax is emitted into a file)
Signed-off-by: Patrick Georgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Index: targets/buildtarget
25 matches
Mail list logo
