On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 1:43 AM, Graeme Russ 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
Changes in v2: Change capitalization of the x86 tag.
Changes in v3: Move the Signed-off-by line up.
Changes in v4: Change the summary tag style.
boards.cfg | 1 + 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/boards.cfg b/boards.cfg index 8b7a03b..4b2a1a7 100644 --- a/boards.cfg +++ b/boards.cfg @@ -272,6 +272,7 @@ tcm-bf518 blackfin blackfin tcm-bf537 blackfin blackfin eNET x86 x86 eNET
sc520 eNET:SYS_TEXT_BASE=0x38040000eNET_SRAM x86 x86 eNET
sc520 eNET:SYS_TEXT_BASE=0x19000000+coreboot-x86 x86 x86 coreboot
chromebook-x86 coreboot coreboot:SYS_TEXT_BASE=0xFC0000
sandbox sandbox sandbox sandbox
sandbox -
cobra5272 m68k mcf52x2 cobra5272
idmr m68k mcf52x2
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.
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.
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.
Gabe