Re: V2 VIA EPIA

2003-10-01 Thread Eric W. Biederman
ron minnich [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: OK, for VGA, here we go again. Here is my plan. I will combine vgabios + idt into one file, put it in pc80, make it a standard device, have it turn itself on with the standard static configuration techniques, and we'll have vga. The understanding

Re: Level 2 cache activation code?

2003-10-01 Thread Svante Signell
Ron, Thank you for your reply. Maybe there is hope after all. On Wed, 2003-10-01 at 01:34, ron minnich wrote: On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Svante Signell wrote: i) Does this code work for 440BX motherboards? it's processor-dependent, 440bx or not is not an issue. Thanks for the info. To clarify

Re: Level 2 cache activation code?

2003-10-01 Thread ron minnich
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Svante Signell wrote: i) Does LinuxBIOS work for 440BX-based mother-boards, single and dual? Downloading the code from CVS shows support for Intel L440GX+ and a patch for linux-2.4.13, not 440BX or kernels later than 2.4.13. Also, I did not find anything about MSI

Re: V2 VIA EPIA

2003-10-01 Thread Greg Watson
Oh, I can see what is going to happen to buildrom now that Ron has discovered it... :-) Greg At 11:44 PM -0600 30/9/03, ron minnich wrote: Changes: new epia target for 512k: targets/via/epia/Config.512kflash.lb epia defaults to 256k flash buildtarget now takes either a directory, and uses

Patch for V2 new config

2003-10-01 Thread Mark Wilkinson
Hi Ron, I started looking at building the Via/Epia with the v2, and noticed that your last snapshot said that the mainboard Config.lb should set the ROM_SIZE to 265K. Here's a little patch that lets the config python use 'default OPTION value' tag in the Mainboard Config.lb overriding

Re: Patch for V2 new config

2003-10-01 Thread Greg Watson
If my understanding is correct, you want to have an option value that has a mainboard specific default value, but that can be overridden in the target configuration file? If this is the case, then my preference would be to do something like the following in the mainboard file: if ~

Re: Patch for V2 new config

2003-10-01 Thread Stefan Reinauer
* Mark Wilkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [031001 16:44]: Here's a little patch that lets the config python use 'default OPTION value' tag in the Mainboard Config.lb overriding the value set Is that not possible already? I've been using it in some of the opteron builds since a while...?!? Stefan

Re: Patch for V2 new config

2003-10-01 Thread ron minnich
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Greg Watson wrote: If my understanding is correct, you want to have an option value that has a mainboard specific default value, but that can be overridden in the target configuration file? If this is the case, then my preference would be to do something like the

Re: Patch for V2 new config

2003-10-01 Thread ron minnich
Mark, that patch is not needed, there is already code in place to do that. But thanks for the input, we appreciate it. I'm impressed that you got that all worked out! thanks! ron ___ Linuxbios mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Patch for V2 new config

2003-10-01 Thread Greg Watson
/mainboard/via/epia/Config.lb file (there are similar lines for solo and one other I think) in the CVS snapshot (20031001-1400) What my patch does is make that line work so that the buildtarget command will work out of the box (or cvs snapshot) in the targets diretory for ./buildtarget via/epia

Re: Patch for V2 new config

2003-10-01 Thread Greg Watson
At 10:20 AM -0600 1/10/03, ron minnich wrote: On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Greg Watson wrote: If my understanding is correct, you want to have an option value that has a mainboard specific default value, but that can be overridden in the target configuration file? If this is the case, then my

Re: Patch for V2 new config

2003-10-01 Thread ron minnich
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Stefan Reinauer wrote: 'default OPTION value' tag in the Mainboard Config.lb overriding the value set Is that not possible already? I've been using it in some of the opteron builds since a while...?!? default was not allowed in mainboard files until I added that patch.

Re: Patch for V2 new config

2003-10-01 Thread ron minnich
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Greg Watson wrote: The problem is you're relying on obscure behavior of an option. You're setting (or not setting) an option in the target config file, then subsequently changing it's default value, then using whichever happens to override the other. See my reply to