[coreboot] rom files in Config.lb
marcj303 at gmail.com
Fri Apr 17 18:21:12 CEST 2009
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?
More information about the coreboot