[LinuxBIOS] [v3][PATCH] stage0 and stage1 cleanup and improvements.
Marc.Jones at AMD.com
Fri Jul 20 00:34:05 CEST 2007
Stefan Reinauer wrote:
> * Marc Jones <Marc.Jones at AMD.com> [070719 23:52]:
>> I only think that this is a problem with initram because it links to
>> stage0. Maybe we should reconsider that. Maybe it needs to stand alone.
> There are a few functions that we might want to share:
> - printk
> - the lar functions (?? not sure, maybe not even those.)
> - what else?
> One thing we had in v2 was 6 incarnations of print(k), each in 10
> incarnations, one for each log level. That made 60 functions just for
> pushing a few letters of _debug_ to the _developer_.
> Maybe we have to duplicate printk in the binary, but we should try to
> keep it one incarnation in the code.
> If it is only for printk, setting up a jump table is maybe not worth it.
> Though stage2 will have one, too.
> Modular design and it's advantages and disadvantages. I think we should
> try to go the "defined interface to stage0" way, as Juergen also
> suggested (I dont think this is a hack)
If it is only for printk then I don't think it is worth it. I don't
think that initram would need lar functions but stage2 and a payload might.
Senior Software Engineer
(970) 226-9684 Office
mailto:Marc.Jones at amd.com
More information about the coreboot