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

[Graeme Russ]

Hi Gabe,

On 17/11/11 21:11, Gabe Black wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 1:43 AM, Graeme Russ <graeme.russ at gmail.com
> <mailto: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

[snip]

> 
>     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.

Well, if a given patch is meaningless without another, they really should
be combined. Of course there are exceptions, like adding a new driver - The
code for it gets added in one patch, and the usage in a board in another

>     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.

I mean, if this is 'generic', why is there a reference to the 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.

This probably won't work in and of itself without a major overhaul of the
U-Boot driver architecture :)

Boards will need their own config for Ethernet drivers for example

Regards,

Graeme