From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Graeme Russ Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 21:26:08 +1100 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v4 1/5] x86: Add a target for running as a coreboot payload In-Reply-To: References: <1321489672-6191-1-git-send-email-gabeblack@chromium.org> <1321489672-6191-2-git-send-email-gabeblack@chromium.org> <4EC4D758.7090306@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4EC4E140.70607@gmail.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hi Gabe, On 17/11/11 21:11, Gabe Black wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 1:43 AM, Graeme Russ > 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 > 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