[U-Boot] [PATCH v4 1/5] x86: Add a target for running as a coreboot payload

[Gabe Black]

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 1:43 AM, Graeme Russ <graeme.russ at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Gabe,
>
> On 17/11/11 11:27, Gabe Black wrote:
> > Add a target for running u-boot as a coreboot payload in boards.cfg.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack at chromium.org>
> > ---
> > Changes in v2:
> > Change capitalization of the x86 tag.
> >
> > Changes in v3:
> > Move the Signed-off-by line up.
> >
> > Changes in v4:
> > Change the summary tag style.
> >
> >  boards.cfg |    1 +
> >  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/boards.cfg b/boards.cfg
> > index 8b7a03b..4b2a1a7 100644
> > --- a/boards.cfg
> > +++ b/boards.cfg
> > @@ -272,6 +272,7 @@ tcm-bf518                    blackfin    blackfin
> >  tcm-bf537                    blackfin    blackfin
> >  eNET                         x86         x86        eNET
>  -              sc520       eNET:SYS_TEXT_BASE=0x38040000
> >  eNET_SRAM                    x86         x86        eNET
>  -              sc520       eNET:SYS_TEXT_BASE=0x19000000
> > +coreboot-x86                 x86         x86        coreboot
>  chromebook-x86 coreboot    coreboot:SYS_TEXT_BASE=0xFC0000
> >  sandbox                      sandbox     sandbox     sandbox
>   sandbox        -
> >  cobra5272                    m68k        mcf52x2     cobra5272
>   -
> >  idmr                         m68k        mcf52x2
>
> As mentioned by others before, there is no reason to have these as discrete
> patches - Please merge into a single 'Add coreboot payload'
>


Ok. Since there are more patches here than I sent out previously and one
big patch seemed like it was more than "exactly one complete logical
change" I wanted to find out how these should be merged. If they should all
be merged, then that answers the question.


>
> Is there any real reason to reference 'chromebook-x86'?
>


I don't follow. I'm not referencing it, that's what we're calling our board
since it's an x86 chromebook.



>
> And finally, what is the plan for motherboard specific coreboot variants?
>


We haven't worked out all the details, but our current working plan is that
coreboot itself will be specialized per board and that U-Boot will stay
fairly generic and be specialized as needed using the device tree. We may
find that a single version of U-Boot with a superset of drivers is too big
and we need to have different configs for each variant.

Gabe