rminnich at gmail.com
Mon Sep 3 03:51:14 CEST 2007
On 9/2/07, Ward Vandewege <ward at gnu.org> wrote:
> Now; before I post my patches to the list for review, I'd like to know what
> the current thinking is on the future of buildrom.
it's pretty key to our future as far as I am concerned!
> There are a couple of issues with buildrom as it stands today:
> a) it's v2 only
we can fix that.
> b) there is no standardized way to use a different initrd 'skeleton' for a specific board
Shouldn't we be moving to initramfs? If we do, will that make life easier?
> c) there is no standardized way to have different LinuxBIOS Config.lb files for a
> particular board, based on the payload
that we will need to fix, again, this will be easier in V3, I hope ...
so is the answer to get v3 working on hardware and let it solve this
> It looks like the kconfig setup for v3 will take over much (everything?) of
> what buildrom does now. If that is true, I think I might just add a few
> patches to fix b) and c) before I submit the m57sli patches.
I don't think the v3 kconfig is going to take over completely; we
don't want to put busybox and kernel builds into v3. So, let's try to
keep buildrom working.
This is great stuff, thanks for your work!
More information about the coreboot