[coreboot] rom files in Config.lb

[Marc Jones]

On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Myles Watson <mylesgw at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > It makes me wonder if we should allow people to add payloads this way
>> > too.  Is cbfs flexible enough to allow us to have one payload for
>> > normal and fallback?
>>
>> Sure. it's just a name. It's all in how you walk the file system.
>
> You're right.  The correct question was something more along the lines of
> "How are we going to make it intuitive for people to be able to use the same
> payload for multiple images?"
>
> Are we going to always search for fallback/foo if we can't find normal/foo?
> What about /foo?
>
> I think it should be implemented once somewhere so that it's consistent.

The cbfs types are meant to be extended as needed. A type for fallback
is a good idea.
CBFS_TYPE_STAGE_FALLBACK? I don't think that we are using the stage
concept yet but I think that it still fits v2.  I wonder if the
failover/fallback stuff can be cleaned up to be more like v3?

Marc



-- 
http://marcjonesconsulting.com