[coreboot] SELF/ELF/LAR

[Jeremy Jackson]

On Sun, 2008-04-13 at 04:54 +0200, Peter Stuge wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 04:39:24AM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > My current thinking is that since you will have an intermediate ELF
> > file anyway, that you will transform into a SELF file (which has some
> > nice properties), that it would be easier and way more future-proof
> > to transform that intermediate ELF file into a final ELF file (FELF?)
> > with those same nice properties (junk removed, PHDRs and notes at the
> > start -- did I forget any?)
> 
> I had the same thought.
> 
> There is one rather big disadvantage however, that comes from *almost*
> supporting a given format. There is some value in having a new,
> explicit, file format even if it is just a subset of another,
> existing, file format.
> 
> The benefit is in usability and principle of least surprise.
> If coreboot supports loading certain ELF files, it will be surprising
> to (some) users if it does not support loading all ELF files.

I'm not sure if this is the right thread but I need to get this out of
my head before I forget (i've got about 30 seconds)

I was thinking about legacy removal, and how some payloads need things
tweaked for 1980's PC, (filo legacy IDE ports?) and I was thinking that
the payload could have a flag saying "hey i need old IDE ports" or
something.  Coreboot can either flip that feature on, or emit a message.

Other flags are possible, like I need amd64 or FPU or something else.

Doesn't ELF have some fields already that could be used for that?

> For the same reason we may also want another name less similar to
> ELF, to clearly show that it is not an ELF file.

That marking could also say "Linuxbios i386 executable", addressing that
issue.


-- 
Jeremy Jackson
Coplanar Networks
(519)489-4903
http://www.coplanar.net
jerj at coplanar.net