Hi Bin, On 1 July 2015 at 18:12, Bin Meng <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Simon, > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:59 PM, Simon Glass <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Bin, >> >> On 1 July 2015 at 02:28, Bin Meng <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Move X86_OPTION_ROM_FILE & X86_OPTION_ROM_ADDR to arch/x86/Kconfig >>> and rename them to VGA_BIOS_FILE & VGA_BIOS_ADDR which depend on >>> HAVE_VGA_BIOS. The new names are consistent with other x86 binary >>> blob options like HAVE_FSP/FSP_FILE/FSP_ADDR. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> >>> Makefile | 4 ++-- >>> arch/x86/Kconfig | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> configs/chromebook_link_defconfig | 1 + >>> configs/chromebox_panther_defconfig | 1 + >>> configs/minnowmax_defconfig | 1 + >>> doc/README.x86 | 2 +- >>> drivers/pci/pci_rom.c | 6 +++--- >>> include/configs/minnowmax.h | 3 --- >>> include/configs/x86-chromebook.h | 3 --- >>> 9 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) >> >> It's good to move these to Kconfig. But why should we rename it from >> option ROM to VGA ROM? Is it not possible that we might want to run >> some other ROM? >> > > I think the only ROM we want to support in U-Boot is VGA, so I changed > it to specifically mention VGA. There are other two typical type of > ROMs, PXE ROM for network boot and AHCI ROM for disk read/write which > U-Boot has native drivers to do that. Besides, I suspect current bios > interrupts codes could handle PXE ROM or AHCI ROM call correctly as > they were written for VBE calls.
OK, sounds reasonable. We could generalise later if such supported becomes needed. But it sounds unlikely from what you are saying. Acked-by: Simon Glass <[email protected]> Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
