----- "Peter Stuge" <[email protected]> wrote: > Nasa wrote: > > > Did you pick a particular CPU for the board, or did the CPU come > > > already installed when you bought the board? > .. > > I choose the CPU (a number of years ago) which is an Intel Core 2 > > Duo Mobile 1.66GHz. > > Ok. I don't know if this CPU has been tested with coreboot, but even > so it is possible that it will just work<tm>. You should give it a > go. > > > > I have read a little about payloads and noted that SeaBIOS would be > > the easiest way to go... However (this being important for the > > flash chip), I didn't see anything about the benefits of putting a > > linux kernel as a payload. > > Benefits are that fewer steps are required to boot the system, so > with the kernel in boot flash you can immediately access the root > filesystem regardless of where it is stored. > > > > I did read from the FAQ that most chips aren't large enough to have > > the kernel added as a payload. > > The FAQ needs some updates. I guess "most" chips still aren't large > enough for a kernel, but those 16Mbit chips should be able to hold a > monolithic kernel optimized for a single board. > > > > If my goal is the fastest boot time possible, while still > > supporting the basic system, would going to a Linux payload be the > > way to go? > > > Maybe, but maybe not. If you are using flash media which does not > have a spin-up delay then it might actually be faster for another > payload to load the kernel off the drive using DMA.
I am indeed using an SSD drive to boot my system. I also noted that my motherboard isn't supported for full linux kernel install anyways. > > > > If so, what size flash chip should I get? > > The larger the better IMO. There can be a chipset limit for the flash > chip size, but I don't know what it is for i945 chipsets. In any > case a larger flash chip will still be usable, just at e.g. half > capacity. > > > > BTW: once I get this working, it's going up on the carpc forum -- I > > know a lot of people would be interested in reducing their systems > > boot time. > > Yes. It's also the first thing I used coreboot for myself. Please > mention that it is very important for people to check if their > mainboard and/or CPU+chipset is already supported, otherwise they are > looking at rather large projects of studying PC architecture and > developing lots of low-level code to implement that support. An > unsupported mainboard with a supported CPU+chipset is much less > effort though, and could best case be just a few days-few weeks > project for a C programmer. > > For new installs of course hardware known to be coreboot confirmed > would be best. :) Will Do. Nasa -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
