[coreboot] GSoC project(SCSI boot)__status report

Kevin O'Connor kevin at koconnor.net
Wed Jun 18 04:58:00 CEST 2008

On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 09:25:59PM -0400, Joseph Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 01:04:49 +0200, Stefan Reinauer <stepan at coresystems.de>
> wrote:
> > To make this really good, we'd need to heavily extend that intXX
> > callback code in coreboot. Which means it has to grow and grow and it
> > will eventually become a reduced version of LegacyBIOS. That is bad. If
> > we know LegacyBIOS does a pretty good job and it is reasonably small
> > (even qemu's current bios.bin is under 30k with , I would really prefer
> > using it for that task instead of yet another half-baked solution.
> >
> I think we all came to an agreement that the only "real" way to do this is
> integrate legacybios (or parts) into coreboot (as an option of course).

I recommend caution here.

I think it is important that LegacyBIOS support kvm, qemu, and bochs.
Having the code support those environments will help increase the
overall user base, which will help ensure the core code supports many
different OSes and is thoroughly tested.  So, I don't think we want to
make LegacyBIOS coreboot specific.

I also don't think it would be a good idea to fork the code or copy
large parts of it into multiple repositories.

So, I'm all for aligning coreboot and LegacyBIOS - it is after all the
reason I started LegacyBIOS - but I think we need to come up with a
boundary between the two.  In my opinion, coreboot should (optionally)
call out to LegacyBIOS and the two should work towards the same goal.
But I don't think they should be tightly integrated at the source code


More information about the coreboot mailing list