On 16.06.2009 17:24, ron minnich wrote: > Committed revision 4357. > > I changed the name v to start_address. >
Thanks! > OK, next steps. We need what we have in v3 stage1 code, which is a > call to the CAR code, then a jmp to the CAR disable code, then a jmp > to the code that loads the RAM stages. I'll work on that. It will be > in arch/i386/init, guess I'll call it rombootstrap.c. > Can't we just reuse the v3 code here with slight adaptations from LAR to CBFS? > The hope here is that we end up with a general pattern and process for > cleaning up and moving to a more comprehensible CAR setup with the v3 > improvements part of the picture. > > Fixing up includes is a good idea. > Indeed. > I think we ought to not bring over the v3 stage numbering. I've gotten > very mixed reactions to the stage1 etc. naming. It seemed like a good > idea but in the end it did not seem that essential. > I'd really like to bring over stage naming from v3 to v2 (but I personally don't care that much about phase numbering, although numbers make it easy to find out execution order). Please let me explain why. I consider myself to be a coreboot developer with some knowledge of the codebase. However, although I have been looking at v2 code for over 2 years, I still have not figured out the code flow in v2 whereas v3 has really easy to follow code flow for stage1, initram and initial stage2. Granted, #include in stage0 was not really such a good idea in v3, but you fixed that part when porting to v2. Sure, there are a lot of people who understand the v2 code easily, but for me the numbering in v3 was a lifesaver. Just my two cents. Regards, Carl-Daniel -- http://www.hailfinger.org/ -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
