FILO 0.4 [PMX:#]
gwatson at lanl.gov
Mon Apr 12 07:43:01 CEST 2004
I think this is a great idea. I'll talk it over with Ron and Ollie this
week and look at how it might be implemented.
On 05/04/2004, at 6:46 AM, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
> * Eric W. Biederman <ebiederman at lnxi.com> [040405 05:02]:
>> If we want to take a snapshot of the source tree of FILO or any other
>> bootloader into the LinuxBIOS tree under util. Build that part of the
>> build and build a complete romimage that works. I am fine
>> with that. It is even reasonable to make it so you can drop in
>> external trees like etherboot and have everything build together
>> Actual linking things together instead of including them together
>> is unacceptable.
> What about the following:
> Currently LinuxBIOS divides into 2 fundamental parts:
> 1) hardware initialization
> 2) getting and starting the payload
> This second part consists of two parts, again:
> i) elfloader
> ii) payload
> Note, this is only one possible design. Maybe, this design is bloated
> for some application cases.
> Eric, you want to make a hard cut between what is LinuxBIOS and what is
> not. This is generally a good idea, as it keeps the different
> initialization steps distinct from reach other. What, if we add another
> cut by dividing hardware initialization frin the payload-loader?
> Instead of packing stuff like filo to util, we could do:
> * create a directory loader which can hold all "loaders"
> * move the elf loader with a Config.lb to a subdirectory in there
> * create other directories for other "loaders" like filo.
> If done right, filo can still be compiled as a payload, or built in if
> the win in size is noticable. A target config file could probably
> which method to use, without overhead. Also, syncing with other trees,
> like Takeshi's filo tree could be fairly easy, too.
> I don't think we really have a conflict in direction here at all.
> LinuxBIOS itself should be as small as possible, and the different
> should be as independent as possible. But we also want to be a lot more
> flexible than the existing solutions..
>> In addition we have had way to many questions of what is the right
>> policy for a bootloader to implement, on this list. I refuse
>> to couple that to the LinuxBIOS core. And I don't want some stupid
>> policy in there like FILO's that would require me to upgrade
>> my firmware just to upgrade my OS.
> Please explain, how is filo worse here than putting linux in flash?
More information about the coreboot