[coreboot] [PATCH] buildrom: Add support for OpenBIOS aspayload

[Myles Watson]

> -----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
clean.  

With that change:

Acked-by: Myles Watson <mylesgw at gmail.com>

Thanks,
Myles