jordan.crouse at amd.com
Mon Sep 17 17:19:07 CEST 2007
On 16/09/07 15:08 -0300, Alan Carvalho de Assis wrote:
> 2007/9/16, Uwe Hermann <uwe at hermann-uwe.de>:
> > I'm not so sure. Maybe it actually _is_ a good idea to integrate (parts
> > of) buildrom in the v3 build process? It would sure make the
> > "user experience" better. The question is how much work this will be.
> > I guess we'd want to change quite a lot of buildrom's inner workings in
> > that case (and v3's for that matter). If so, we should keep buildrom
> > as a separate project in v2, but integrate it completely in v3.
> > Comments?
> I think this is a good idea. Currently the most hard work is not to
> compile LinuxBIOS, but it is compile and create an rootfs. I used
> buildroot to create the LBdistro (my dirt hack) and I think buildroot
> can be integrated as an option to compile a LAB (Linux As Bootloader
> but we can refer it also as Linux As Bios).
I do agree that we should figure out a way to transition building
the LAB and initramfs images to buildroot (which is better suited for
the process anyway).
> I think it can be checkbox option to call the buildroot and compile
> linux and all programs.
I am a little worried if the multiple nested makefiles would be a
strain on older machines. But we can give it a shot and see what
happens. Do you have a buildroot default config we can use as an example?
Systems Software Development Engineer
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
More information about the coreboot