Re: [LinuxBIOS] FILO with the USB

Fridel Fainshtein wrote: > OK, thank you. > My employer approved the submission. I"ll do it soon. It will be very appreciated, I can assure you of that ;) I look forward to seeing it, and I'll be happy to test. Thanks, Corey > > On Nov 26, 2007 1:24 AM, Corey Osgood <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >

Re: [LinuxBIOS] FILO with the USB

OK, thank you. My employer approved the submission. I"ll do it soon. On Nov 26, 2007 1:24 AM, Corey Osgood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Fridel Fainshtein wrote: > > OK, > > > > supposing FILO USB works > > How do I submit the corrections? > > > > http://www.linuxbios.org/Development_Guidelines#Ho

Re: [LinuxBIOS] FILO with the USB

Fridel Fainshtein wrote: > OK, > > supposing FILO USB works > How do I submit the corrections? > http://www.linuxbios.org/Development_Guidelines#How_to_contribute In short form: 1) cd to the filo-0.5/ folder 2) svn add * -R (if you've created any new files, be sure to move files you don't want

Re: [LinuxBIOS] FILO with the USB

OK, supposing FILO USB works How do I submit the corrections? On Nov 17, 2007 2:56 AM, Ward Vandewege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 01:27:12AM +0200, Fridel Fainshtein wrote: > > VxWorks "bootrom" is an example of such a tiny-kernel as well as I > > understand. > > > > But

Re: [LinuxBIOS] FILO with the USB

Al Boldi wrote: > bari wrote: >> Who is or will be designing anything with only 2Mb (256KB) of Flash? >> It's difficult to even find Flash under 4Mb (512KB) in high volume. > > Even with 512kb you run a pretty tight ship. And that's most boards today. > > The idea here is to keep the LB-footprin

Re: [LinuxBIOS] FILO with the USB

bari wrote: > Who is or will be designing anything with only 2Mb (256KB) of Flash? > It's difficult to even find Flash under 4Mb (512KB) in high volume. Even with 512kb you run a pretty tight ship. And that's most boards today. The idea here is to keep the LB-footprint as tiny as possible, and n

Re: [LinuxBIOS] FILO with the USB

Al Boldi wrote: > Jordan Crouse wrote: >> On 16/11/07 14:58 -0800, Steve Isaacs wrote: >>> Jordan Crouse wrote: Well, first and foremost, because the tiny kernel already knows how to do >>> I'm sorry, can someone enlighten me as to what a "tiny kernel" is? Is >>> that anything similar to

Re: [LinuxBIOS] FILO with the USB

On Nov 17, 2007 5:40 PM, Peter Stuge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 01:39:33PM -0800, Vlad wrote: > > There are at least two "super-BIOS" implementations that rely on a > > tiny Linux kernel loaded from Flash ROM: > > Good point. > > For LAB I believe Stefan wants to include m

Re: [LinuxBIOS] FILO with the USB

On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 01:39:33PM -0800, Vlad wrote: > There are at least two "super-BIOS" implementations that rely on a > tiny Linux kernel loaded from Flash ROM: Good point. For LAB I believe Stefan wants to include more drivers in order to avoid having to rebuild/reflash the BIOS when the SC

Re: [LinuxBIOS] FILO with the USB

--- Stefan Reinauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes it has been done as a proof-of-concept but as far as I > know > Linux-as-bootloader never made it into any product (that I know of) There are at least two "super-BIOS" implementations that rely on a tiny Linux kernel loaded from Flash ROM: 1)

Re: [LinuxBIOS] FILO with the USB

Stefan Reinauer wrote: > Al Boldi wrote: > > The problem with the current tiny-kernel approach is that, it can't get > > nearly as tiny as filo. And when you have legacy systems like i440bx > > with only 256kb flash, then tiny-kernel becomes a definite no go, which > > make filo the only viable so

Re: [LinuxBIOS] FILO with the USB

Al Boldi wrote: > The problem with the current tiny-kernel approach is that, it can't get > nearly as tiny as filo. And when you have legacy systems like i440bx with > only 256kb flash, then tiny-kernel becomes a definite no go, which make filo > the only viable solution. > > What we really nee

Re: [LinuxBIOS] FILO with the USB

Jordan Crouse wrote: > On 16/11/07 14:58 -0800, Steve Isaacs wrote: > > Jordan Crouse wrote: > >> Well, first and foremost, because the tiny kernel already knows how to > >> do > > > > I'm sorry, can someone enlighten me as to what a "tiny kernel" is? Is > > that anything similar to this? http://ww

Re: [LinuxBIOS] FILO with the USB

On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 01:27:12AM +0200, Fridel Fainshtein wrote: > VxWorks "bootrom" is an example of such a tiny-kernel as well as I understand. > > But in my case LAB's solution is the only way. So, debug is the only > way in the nearest future. > > ... and then the tiny-kernel Look at build

Re: [LinuxBIOS] FILO with the USB

VxWorks "bootrom" is an example of such a tiny-kernel as well as I understand. But in my case LAB's solution is the only way. So, debug is the only way in the nearest future. ... and then the tiny-kernel And whether the linuxbios would have AMD K10 support the world would be perfect and smiling

Re: [LinuxBIOS] FILO with the USB

On 16/11/07 14:58 -0800, Steve Isaacs wrote: > Jordan Crouse wrote: >> Well, first and foremost, because the tiny kernel already knows how to do > > I'm sorry, can someone enlighten me as to what a "tiny kernel" is? Is that > anything similar to this? http://www.selenic.com/linux-tiny/ Well, typi

Re: [LinuxBIOS] FILO with the USB

Jordan Crouse wrote: > Well, first and foremost, because the tiny kernel already knows how to do I'm sorry, can someone enlighten me as to what a "tiny kernel" is? Is that anything similar to this? http://www.selenic.com/linux-tiny/ Steve -- linuxbios mailing list linuxbios@linuxbios.org http:

Re: [LinuxBIOS] FILO with the USB

On 17/11/07 00:09 +0200, Fridel Fainshtein wrote: > Usb boot loader would be just a nice feature to have in an existent > application. > > Why should one use "tiny kernel + kexec", if there are such a wonderful things > like linuxbios and filo? Well, first and foremost, because the tiny kernel a

Re: [LinuxBIOS] FILO with the USB

Usb boot loader would be just a nice feature to have in an existent application. Why should one use "tiny kernel + kexec", if there are such a wonderful things like linuxbios and filo? On Nov 16, 2007 8:07 PM, yhlu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 16, 2007 4:42 AM, Fridel Fainshtein <[EMAIL PR

Re: [LinuxBIOS] FILO with the USB

On Nov 16, 2007 4:42 AM, Fridel Fainshtein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Etherboot does not work with gcc 4. At least filo part. > As I remember, I found a few strange things like > #if 0 <-- original > #define isdigit(c) ((c & 0x04) != 0) > #define islower(c) ((c & 0x02) != 0) > //#define

Re: [LinuxBIOS] FILO with the USB

Etherboot does not work with gcc 4. At least filo part. As I remember, I found a few strange things like #if 0 <-- original #define isdigit(c) ((c & 0x04) != 0) #define islower(c) ((c & 0x02) != 0) //#define isspace(c)((c & 0x20) != 0) #define isupper(c) ((c & 0x01) != 0) #else <

Re: [LinuxBIOS] FILO with the USB

* yhlu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071116 06:31]: > On Nov 15, 2007 7:38 AM, Corey Osgood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Fridel Fainshtein wrote: > > > I compared to etherboot and it works there. > > > In Etherboot there are 2 set of bswap functions: > > > 1) little > > > 2) big > > > > so any reason for

Re: [LinuxBIOS] FILO with the USB

* Fridel Fainshtein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071114 20:03]: > Hello all, > > It seams that the USB code was taken from the previous version of FILO > but never have been tested. > > Some symptoms are > 1) > malloc_diag: alloc: 4208 bytes (8 blocks), free: 61320 bytes (1 blocks) > malloc_check: sizes

Re: [LinuxBIOS] FILO with the USB

On Nov 15, 2007 7:38 AM, Corey Osgood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Fridel Fainshtein wrote: > > I compared to etherboot and it works there. > > In Etherboot there are 2 set of bswap functions: > > 1) little > > 2) big > > so any reason for not using etherboot with filo or kernel loader? YH -- li

Re: [LinuxBIOS] FILO with the USB

Right Sorry On Nov 15, 2007 5:38 PM, Corey Osgood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Fridel Fainshtein wrote: > > I compared to etherboot and it works there. > > In Etherboot there are 2 set of bswap functions: > > 1) little > > 2) big > > > > In FILO there is only one bswap set > > > > Which one to cho

Re: [LinuxBIOS] FILO with the USB

Fridel Fainshtein wrote: > I compared to etherboot and it works there. > In Etherboot there are 2 set of bswap functions: > 1) little > 2) big > > In FILO there is only one bswap set > > Which one to choose? > no idea. but please cc the list with stuff like this so someone else can help. -core

Re: [LinuxBIOS] FILO with the USB

Fridel Fainshtein wrote: > Hello all, > > It seams that the USB code was taken from the previous version of FILO > but never have been tested. > Since noone else piped up, here's what I've figured out: Older versions of FILO (<0.5) don't have any USB support. The original author(s) of FILO's US

[LinuxBIOS] FILO with the USB

Hello all, It seams that the USB code was taken from the previous version of FILO but never have been tested. Some symptoms are 1) malloc_diag: alloc: 4208 bytes (8 blocks), free: 61320 bytes (1 blocks) malloc_check: sizes mismatch: 0xa1 vs 0x0 at 00132670 2) dma_to_td: can not find td Trying t