stuge-linuxbios at cdy.org
Fri Jun 15 00:46:42 CEST 2007
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 04:36:01PM -0600, Jordan Crouse wrote:
> On 14/06/07 21:33 +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
> > > The intention here is to allow payloads to auto-detect the
> > > method they should use for text output, such that no end-user
> > > configuration of the payload is necessary.
> > This is a very good idea.
> I disagree. Letting payloads rely on LinuxBIOS to set up devices
> is the start of a slippery slope that we should try like mad to
I understand your concern but I agree with Bretton and Stefan.
> There is nothing about LinuxBIOS today that guarantees that any
> output method is available (even serial).
We haven't thought enough about it yet, but there has been discussion
about a LinuxBIOS panic() that can still actually be used to do
meaningful things with the system. (Reboot, download code, execute
code, reflash, peek and poke maybe.) This needs to communicate
somehow. Serial isn't always available but we do want _some_ console.
For making the port we NEED a console. In theory we may not but in
practice ICE debuggers cost mega-$ and code written dry is not
complete after the first try running it.
> If we encourage payloads to use structures like these and make
> assumptions about the state of the hardware,
The idea is that structures should be used to _not_ make assumptions.
They should have enough info about the hw init that has been done so
that anyone interested can have a well-defined workflow.
> It is not LinuxBIOS's reponsiblity to make life easier for the
Actually that is it's sole responsibility. :)
> LinuxBIOS is not a OS loader, it shouldn't be asked to act as one.
More information about the coreboot