[coreboot] flashrom image identification problem/coreboot signature RFC
stepan at coresystems.de
Mon Jun 16 19:02:17 CEST 2008
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> On 14.06.2008 21:53, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
>> I suggest using the same mechanism, wrapping the information in a lar
>> header, making it a single file lar. The lar format can handle this, and
>> we don't have to worry for different versions.
> How about a generic bootblock/VPD signature instead? Having a short
> signature in the top 256 bytes or so will allow recognition of complete
> and incomplete (only partly mapped) coreboot images easily.
> Proposal for signature formats:
> 4 bytes:
> "CB20" for v2.0 and "CB30" for v3.0
> 8 bytes (option 1):
> "CB203300" for v2.0, rev 3300
> 8 bytes (option 2):
> 16 bytes:
> "coreboot20r3300 " for v2.0, r3300 (note the space at the end for
> 5-digit svn revisions)
Top 256 bytes will not always work. The current trouble is due to the
fact that we have some mainboards that need the information in a
different place than others.
Other than that, we might indeed put the coreboot version into the
firmware signature, too, if there's a reason to do so. Is there?
I miss the actual information in your suggestion, namely the mainboard
vendor and type.
Since we already have LAR, using that format instead of yet another
signature rule makes a lot of sense in my opinion.
coresystems GmbH • Brahmsstr. 16 • D-79104 Freiburg i. Br.
Tel.: +49 761 7668825 • Fax: +49 761 7664613
Email: info at coresystems.de • http://www.coresystems.de/
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Freiburg • HRB 7656
Geschäftsführer: Stefan Reinauer • Ust-IdNr.: DE245674866
More information about the coreboot