On 03/06/15 at 11:33 PM Paul Menzel <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Felix, dear Varad, > > > Varad, welcome to coreboot! > > Am Freitag, den 06.03.2015, 21:50 +0100 schrieb Felix Held: > > > I dumped the BIOS binary for a Radeon GPU and am trying to make sense of > > > it > > > using the atombios kernel header [1] - are there any resources on > > > ATOMBIOS > > > internals I can use? I believe the GPU initialization can be done by > > > tracing the dump contents as suggested in this thread [2], but cannot > > > figure how new ATOMBIOS tables would be created and used. I also need > > > to check the coreboot source to plan how this can be implemented. > > > > If you plan to work on native gfx init for AMD, talk to mrnuke; he > > already did quite some work on that. > > Alexandru has already pushed change sets for review [1][2][3]. > Additionally he wrote some posts touching this topic, which you can read > in the coreboot blog [4]. > > Additionally there are several threads on this mailing list, where this > topic was discussed. > > I wish you the best of luck with your application! >
Thanks - in that case I would like to work on adding coreboot support to an ARM platform, later adding Tianocore as a payload. Here is my view of the idea, please suggest if I am on the right track: The board specific lowlevel code would be placed at src/mainboard/<mainboard> and the SoC (gpio, uart, clock, pinmux) initialization at src/soc/<soc>. The implementation details can be taken from the SoC reference manuals, U-Boot source and the mainboard specs. UEFI would be the second stage loader - the SoC support can be added by extending the existing ArmPkg framework, and the boot flow would look like Reset -> Coreboot lowlevel init -> UEFI Pre-PI* -> UEFI DXE. Can the UEFI HOBs be constructed by coreboot so that Pre-PI can be removed? I also need some help figuring where libpayload fits in - Tianocore has its own implementation of C library routines (edk2/StdLib), and once UEFI takes control, these can directly be used by the FD. I am tracing the existing ARM code. Which mainboard would be the preferred target? Also, please suggest any 'easy' patches I could send in to get comfortable with the development process. Thanks, Varad > > Thanks, > > Paul > > > [1] http://review.coreboot.org/8281 > [2] http://review.coreboot.org/8281 > [3] http://review.coreboot.org/8281 > [4] http://blogs.coreboot.org/blog/author/mrnuke/ -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
