Reversing the default value of CONFIG_COMPRESS from 1 to 0

ollie lho ollie at
Mon Nov 18 19:59:00 CET 2002

On Tue, 2002-11-19 at 04:50, Ronald G. Minnich wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Kevin Hester wrote:
> > Anyone have a problem with me moving statically generated PIRQ tables from 
> > the compressed section to the uncompressed session?
> I've thought about this, but in the long term we don't want to do it. 
> Long term, we want to get rid of the memory hole at 0xf0000 and have DRAM 
> there. The kernel searches there, however. I think it makes sense for a 
> given motherboard to just require that we get rid of the memory hole and 
> then COMPRESS will work with no further hacking.

	If it is really a HW limitation, how does this "long term" thing
going to happen ?? Unless you can redesign the HW in some way.


More information about the coreboot mailing list