[LinuxBIOS] [RFC] Call for Action: LinuxBIOS foundations

Peter Stuge peter at stuge.se
Wed Aug 29 22:21:48 CEST 2007

On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 02:43:56AM -0500, Corey Osgood wrote:
> I think there should be some limits to what hardware we try to
> support.

Yes and no. I think it's OK to draw a line where there would be a
substantial loss because of legacy. CAR is one such thing. The gain
from using CAR in v3 far outweighs supporting too-old CPUs IMO.

> I don't think we should be trying to support socket 7 hardware
> because for the most part those PCs have either outlived their
> usefulness, or have done their job for so many years now nobody
> wants to mess with it.

I disagree strongly. There is definately a point in supporting older
hardware as well, sometimes LB may even be the only way to utilize
older hardware to the fullest, but all the other motivations
mentioned in this thread apply too. (cheap, good for experimenting,
no CPU-monsters but maybe enough for simpler applications)

> v3 should have better documentation,

Better than v2? That's already in place. Check out newboot.lyx. (Or
was it renamed?)

Better than present? Please help out!

> > what i would like to see is: generic support for usb/cdrom boot,
> FILO can already do usb/el torito cdrom boot, but it badly needs
> ehci support.

The FILO USB stack is not completely robust as I've understood
things. AFAIK it also only supports OHCI and neither UHCI nor the
quite desirable EHCI.


More information about the coreboot mailing list