[coreboot] [PATCH] fix normal vs. fallback
mylesgw at gmail.com
Fri Jul 9 18:01:15 CEST 2010
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Stefan Reinauer
<stefan.reinauer at coresystems.de> wrote:
> On 7/9/10 3:36 PM, Myles Watson wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 7:10 AM, Peter Stuge <peter at stuge.se> wrote:
>>> Stefan Reinauer wrote:
>>>> Even though the normal/fallback mechanism uses CMOS, it does not
>>>> require an option table.
>>>> Are there advantages in changing this?
>>> One advantage would be that any use of NVRAM always implies having an
>>> option table, which I think makes sense. Somewhere it needs to be
>>> specified what bit(s) the mechanism uses, better in an option table
>>> than hardcoded IMO.
>> That was my thought. It should be obvious when we're using/corrupting
>> values, to minimize surprises.
> the normal/fallback selection and the cmos settings are living in
> completely distinct spaces. normal/fallback is not covered by the
Yes. It could still corrupt values used by the factory BIOS if you're
trying to have them coexist. For testing, it can be nice to not have
to do BIOS setup every time you boot the factory BIOS.
> So I don't think this applies here. At least not until we
> create this necessity. I think we want to be able to use CMOS options
> without normal / fallback and the other way round, so we need to be careful.
No problem. It compiles now, so I'm happy.
More information about the coreboot