[coreboot] passing EFI-console-like info to payloads

Peter Stuge peter at stuge.se
Mon Apr 7 23:23:23 CEST 2008

On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 03:37:25PM -0400, Jeremy Jackson wrote:
> With the libpayload video console support framework, presumably all
> gfx chips could have their drivers written, yet again.
> Is this necessary, or unnecessary code duplication?

Neccessary. The code is duplicated between libpayload and Linux fb
driver because they are mutually exclusive, and because coreboot does
not want to try to abstract every aspect of hardware with some API.
(This is the BIOS way, which we want to move away from.)

As Jordan mentioned, libpayload is intended for development of
applications that become coreboot payloads. This is very awesome
for embedded when an OS kernel isn't needed.

> Could the chip-specific init code be left in Linuxbios, and only a
> generic video console (ie font + generic rendering to framebuffer
> code) be provided in libpayload (and/or Linux)?

In theory, yes. But either there would be lots of callbacks for
setting options (I can't use the 16 color mode, I need 16bpp) or
the console would be fixed format and very limited.
Neither is acceptable IMO.


More information about the coreboot mailing list