[coreboot] [PATCH] buildrom: Add support for OpenBIOS aspayload
mylesgw at gmail.com
Wed Apr 30 16:21:30 CEST 2008
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Uwe Hermann [mailto:uwe at hermann-uwe.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 4:42 AM
> To: Myles Watson
> Cc: coreboot at coreboot.org
> Subject: Re: [coreboot] [PATCH] buildrom: Add support for OpenBIOS
> as a payload
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 10:20:31AM -0600, Myles Watson wrote:
> > --- Config.in (Revision 169)
> > +++ Config.in (Arbeitskopie)
> > @@ -94,6 +94,7 @@
> > config USE_LZMA
> > bool "Enable LZMA compression"
> > depends on !(PAYLOAD_OFW && COREBOOT_V2)
> > + depends on !(PAYLOAD_OPENBIOS && COREBOOT_V2)
> > depends on !(PAYLOAD_FILO && COREBOOT_V2)
> > depends on !(PAYLOAD_ETHERBOOT && COREBOOT_V2)
> > default y
> > I've always wondered what the reason for this is. Is there something
> > magical about these payloads and their interactions with lzma?
> There seems to be some issue with OFW, not sure about the others,
> they're probably ok, but we should test that.
> OpenBIOS is ok too, I tested with a manual build. It seems the problem
> is with v2 boards doing nrv2b or no compression instead of lzma (which
> we usually expect in buildrom), but that's for another patch.
> Reattaching new patch for OpenBIOS, enabling the lzma option also.
> I also added a check for 'detok' from fcode-utils, so the user is
> warned if he doesn't have fcode-utils installed.
I agree with the TODO of building fcode-utils as a dependency. You could do
the check and include it if fcode-utils is not already installed. Otherwise
the user might not know where to get it.
A separate issue is that you don't remove the .configured stamp on a make
With that change:
Acked-by: Myles Watson <mylesgw at gmail.com>
More information about the coreboot