On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 12:22:11PM -0700, Myles Watson wrote: > > That would work - but what about other payloads? Maybe we could use a > > naming scheme like > > > > Config-buildrom-$(PAYLOAD).lb > > > > and then make buildrom look for such a file, perhaps falling back to the > > generic Config.lb file if it does not exist? > > That could work. Right now the Config-lab.lb for each architecture is a > fallback image with compression enabled. Maybe Config-lab.lb is not the > right name. Any payload that doesn't use compression will need to use the > Config.lb, and any payload that uses compression should use Config-lab.lb > > In some cases the ROM size is larger for the Config-lab.lb as well.
About that - eventually I'd like to have the ROM size an option that can be set in the buildrom menus. Each payload/board combination should default to something reasonable (say, 1MB for an LAB payload), but it should be configurable. > I thought about naming them Config-ROM_SIZE-COMPRESSION.lb: > Config-1M-lzma.lb or > Config-512K-none.lb > > But it seemed uglier. Yeah. I don't really like that. > The two attached patches implement the switch, the buildrom patch depends on > the Coreboot patch being applied first to create a revision 3091. I tested > it by not updating the revision, then manually doing "svn up", applying the > patch to Coreboot, and rebuilding. > > There is a lot of cleaning up that could be done in the Config.lb files, but > I only touched the ones that buildrom uses, so I wouldn't break anything > else. > > Suggestions are welcome. > > Myles > > Signed-off-by: Myles Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> This looks good to me. Acked-by: Ward Vandewege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Thanks, Ward. -- Ward Vandewege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Free Software Foundation - Senior System Administrator -- coreboot mailing list [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
