Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: ARM Allwinner A10, Cubieboard Come To Coreboot

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,438

    Default ARM Allwinner A10, Cubieboard Come To Coreboot

    Phoronix: ARM Allwinner A10, Cubieboard Come To Coreboot

    The Allwinner A10 ARM SoC is now supported by Coreboot along with the A10-based Cubieboard...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTU2NTk

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,286

    Default

    Can anyone tell what's the advantage of Coreboot on ARM? Grub I get, since its command line is more useful than uboot's, and it can read a text conf file, but I don't see the advantage in Coreboot.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,637

    Default

    The same advantages as on non-ARM, I guess? The speed, openness and the ability to choose your payload freely.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    Can anyone tell what's the advantage of Coreboot on ARM? Grub I get, since its command line is more useful than uboot's, and it can read a text conf file, but I don't see the advantage in Coreboot.
    In general, coreboot's ARM support is still under construction. There are a number of boards that are experimentally supported, but supporting more SoCs ensures that we build something for everything.

    As for the user benefits, firmware is supposed to stay out of the way, so end users won't see much of them. For developers (which are also "users" of firmware code bases), coreboot offers different design decisions in a number of places: We try to separate hardware init from "user interface" (where uboot combines both), we try to keep the hardware init part small (I think that was one of the reasons why the Qi bootloader project was started, too), we try to keep vendor branches at a minimum, and finally we don't shy away from tree cleanups across all boards and architectures (since there are few decisions that truly stand the test of time - and hardware progress).

    In the end we hope this provides a code base that is more pleasing to work with, but that's obviously both biased and a matter of taste :-)

    This is a general statement, so I don't know which of these things motivated Alexandru to do the port (if any), but http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/co...ry/076972.html points at least to the cleanup thing... If in doubt, it was "because - why not?"

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,164

    Default

    I would love to see a single-board computer like Cubieboard or Raspberry Pi but with ARMv8 64-bit architecture.
    Or with quad-core 2.3 GHz, 2 GB RAM, Gigabit Ethernet, and Wi-Fi.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    522

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    I would love to see a single-board computer like Cubieboard or Raspberry Pi but with ARMv8 64-bit architecture.
    Or with quad-core 2.3 GHz, 2 GB RAM, Gigabit Ethernet, and Wi-Fi.
    Funny thing. I've also been looking for something with a bit more "umph". Eyeballing Wandboard Quad ( http://www.wandboard.org/ ) atm.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,164

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by log0 View Post
    Funny thing. I've also been looking for something with a bit more "umph". Eyeballing Wandboard Quad ( http://www.wandboard.org/ ) atm.
    Thanks!
    The Wandboard looks really amazing!
    It's not too expensive either!
    Could have had faster CPU and USB 3 though.

    I really wish there was a single-board computer built around the Qualcomm Snapdragon 800 system-on-a-chip.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    192

    Default Coreboot is serious business

    Quote Originally Posted by pgeorgi View Post
    In general, coreboot's ARM support is still under construction. There are a number of boards that are experimentally supported, but supporting more SoCs ensures that we build something for everything.

    As for the user benefits, firmware is supposed to stay out of the way, so end users won't see much of them. For developers (which are also "users" of firmware code bases), coreboot offers different design decisions in a number of places: We try to separate hardware init from "user interface" (where uboot combines both), we try to keep the hardware init part small (I think that was one of the reasons why the Qi bootloader project was started, too), we try to keep vendor branches at a minimum, and finally we don't shy away from tree cleanups across all boards and architectures (since there are few decisions that truly stand the test of time - and hardware progress).

    In the end we hope this provides a code base that is more pleasing to work with, but that's obviously both biased and a matter of taste :-)

    This is a general statement, so I don't know which of these things motivated Alexandru to do the port (if any), but http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/co...ry/076972.html points at least to the cleanup thing... If in doubt, it was "because - why not?"
    With how ugly proprietary piece of shit firmwares, like AMI's and Award's garbage, seized computer market, anything open is a miracle, especially if it's so modular and universal as Coreboot. You can never have too much of it, so go forth boldly to other architectures, guys !

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •