Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Eric W. Biederman" wrote:
> > Now that I have proven you can do a truly minimal stage1, we need to
> > figure out what stage1 needs to do to properly support stage2. With
> > the attitude of let's not code anything if we can possibly avoid it
> > we will never figure out what we need to do in stage1. And
> > hardwaremain.c will never stabalize.
> [...]
> > Definentily. The problem is that we currently don't have a standard
> > stage2, besides the linux-kernel. So we can't do half the development
> > in stage1 and half the development in stage2. And we need to build
> > the simple powerful concepts that will effectively let stage1 give
> > stage2 a blueprint of the motherboard. And that will make linuxBIOS
> > an exercise in fill in the blanks for brining up a new motherboard.
> >
> > 3/4 of the code I'm proposing to write I fully intend to if not take
> > out of linuxBIOS at least make it possible to compile out.
> > hardwaremain.c has too many of these things presently hardcoded in it.
> > It's nasty, and it seems to need some tweak for every other board.
> > That is not a way to make maintainable software. And yes I'm talking
> > about things that need to be done in stage1.
>
> I think we agree quite a bit, so I snipped a lot.
>
> I see stage1 and stage2 as being separate at a binary level, but not
> necessarily beyond that, at this time. Just like the Linux kernel
> includes bootstrapping code, such as the stub which decompresses the x86
> kernel, I think linuxBIOS should include both stage1 and stage2 in CVS.
> Start the separation now... but still exert complete control over the
> codebase. That lets people replace stage2 if they would like, while
> still providing the same end result for current linuxBIOS users. If
> done right, the appearance of a small stage2 would be transparent to the
> installer.
>
> Thus, I think we -can- do half the devel in stage1, and half in stage2.
> Long term (and perhaps even near term), stage2 for linux-kernel will
> probably be necessary, IMHO...
It sounds good in theory. But unless we want to do more with stage2
than just not put the code in stage1. I don't see a good reason
for the separation at this time. Once I see you and Larry aggreeing
on a common code base, and design. We have something to talk about
with incoporating a stage2 loader into the linuxBIOS source tree.
Eric
