Alex G. пишет:
On 02/21/2011 07:07 PM, Alexandr Frolov wrote:
Hello all,
Is there any activities to support coreboot for AMD G34 motherboards?
Not that I know of, but the chipset should be theoretically supported.
You'd have to check the source tree and the datasheet to see if the
The text sections in *.romstage.o are called .text instead of .rom.text.
The .text can be built in, but the _erom cannot be calculated correctly
without this patch. Nobody uses _erom currently, so nobody seems cares
it.
Signed-off-by: Zheng Bao zheng@amd.com
Index:
Am Donnerstag, den 17.02.2011, 20:05 +0100 schrieb Stefan Reinauer:
I agree we want this, though. Can you please put Makefile.inc in src/?
We currently have subdirs-y = ... util/cbfstool in there. That would be
++ugly with src/Makefile.inc.
However we could move the src/* related things and the
Am Donnerstag, den 17.02.2011, 22:56 +0100 schrieb Stefan Reinauer:
So I suggest to wipe the init_uart8250 from the SuperIO drivers
completely, leaving us with simpler and cleaner console handling code
and one less WTF when reading the code.
Sounds good.
Any reasons not to wipe serial port
Dear coreboot readers!
This is the automatic build system of coreboot.
The developer oxygene checked in revision 6375 to
the coreboot repository. This caused the following
changes:
Change Log:
Move coreboot specific rules and setup to toplevel Makefile.inc
KERNELVERSION issue found by Stefan
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 4:24 AM, Bao, Zheng zheng@amd.com wrote:
The text sections in *.romstage.o are called .text instead of .rom.text.
The .text can be built in, but the _erom cannot be calculated correctly
without this patch. Nobody uses _erom currently, so nobody seems cares it.
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 08:44:35AM -0600, Scott Duplichan wrote:
This really isn't relevant, but microcode patch source code
certainly exists, as does source code for the main microcode
that the patch modifies. A microcode assembler converts the
source code into binary form.
I think it's
On 02/22/2011 02:47 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
Xavi Drudis Ferran wrote:
Does everyone prefer to have it not include update_microcode.c and
change romstage.c in those boards that call update_microcode(...) ?
At least I like this better. It makes it clear what effect this
option has for
The ldscript_fallback_cbfs.lb is only for the romstage. It does nothing to
change the building of ramstage. And it doesn't have area like .data,
which can be read and wrote.
From the attached build output, we can see that only crt0.romstage.o changes
.rodata to rom.data, changes .text to
9 matches
Mail list logo