Hi Gabe,
On 17/11/11 21:11, Gabe Black wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 1:43 AM, Graeme Russ <graeme.russ@gmail.com mailto:graeme.russ@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Gabe, On 17/11/11 11:27, Gabe Black wrote: > Add a target for running u-boot as a coreboot payload in boards.cfg. > > Signed-off-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack@chromium.org
[snip]
As mentioned by others before, there is no reason to have these as discrete patches - Please merge into a single 'Add coreboot payload'Ok. Since there are more patches here than I sent out previously and one big patch seemed like it was more than "exactly one complete logical change" I wanted to find out how these should be merged. If they should all be merged, then that answers the question.
Well, if a given patch is meaningless without another, they really should be combined. Of course there are exceptions, like adding a new driver - The code for it gets added in one patch, and the usage in a board in another
Is there any real reason to reference 'chromebook-x86'?I don't follow. I'm not referencing it, that's what we're calling our board since it's an x86 chromebook.
I mean, if this is 'generic', why is there a reference to the chromebook?
And finally, what is the plan for motherboard specific coreboot variants?We haven't worked out all the details, but our current working plan is that coreboot itself will be specialized per board and that U-Boot will stay fairly generic and be specialized as needed using the device tree. We may find that a single version of U-Boot with a superset of drivers is too big and we need to have different configs for each variant.
This probably won't work in and of itself without a major overhaul of the U-Boot driver architecture :)
Boards will need their own config for Ethernet drivers for example
Regards,
Graeme