[coreboot] CBFS transition plan

ron minnich rminnich at gmail.com
Tue May 5 17:20:50 CEST 2009

On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Myles Watson <mylesgw at gmail.com> wrote:

>    b. Normal should be stored in CBFS, not concatenated into the bootblock.

I would argue that fallback should also be in CBFS. Which is fine, but ...

> 2. Delete - Delete works on the assumption that you want contiguous files
>    a. I'm not convinced that fixed CBFS areas will be simpler than
> ldscripts.  I consider them both ugly.

How are we going to support code that runs at a fixed address? I can
only come up with
these two options. I think the PIE stuff from v3 is not an option:
we've been warned about
it for a while now, and I now believe the warnings.

> 4. Geode ROM handling in CBFS.
>    a. It would be nice to change the code so that it doesn't have to
> be in a fixed location (maybe via a copy to RAM?)
> I guess the short version is that I'd like to keep all the ugly
> details in the bootblock and peel them out one at a time.  I think
> we'll break fewer boards that way.  I feel like we've been lucky to
> catch some of the little glitches lately, and we've had help from
> people being willing to bisect.

good points. But, we're at step 1b and we need to make a decision. Our
current decision, by default, is 'use ldscripts to create fallback and
normal images, not cbfs'.
If you look at how the normal symbol is created in the fallback image,
I don't see that fixed-location cbfs files are any uglier ...


More information about the coreboot mailing list