[coreboot] [PATCH] cbfs, smaller api, more types
c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net
Sun Feb 28 13:04:49 CET 2010
On 28.02.2010 03:23, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
> On 2/28/10 3:04 AM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
>> IMHO the time to change anything in CBFS is over. It is too widely used
>> to change the in-ROM format in a way that is not 100% backwards
>> compatible. Your patch might be backwards compatible, but some of the
>> proposed extensions (option ROM naming and separate PCI ID storage) are not.
> There is no way to do partly flash updates of CBFS _or_ LAR formatted
> coreboot images, so how widely is used just does not really matter. At
> this time a flash update always updates the complete coreboot image.
> Until that changes, we don't break anything.
Actually, partial flash updates work just fine with LAR and if someone
is interested, I'll gladly demonstrate this.
>> OTOH, if we change the in-ROM format, we might as well fix the design
>> shortcomings I mentioned back in the LAR+SELF debate. AFAIK modern CBFS
>> still is a stripped down LAR+SELF.
> What's missing in your opinion?
I didn't know that CBFS doesn't support partial flash updates. Let's
just add that to the list of things I'd like to change. Back then I
wrote up a detailed review of LAR+SELF/CBFS, and it may even have been
in the wiki, but I couldn't find it during a quick search right now.
Anyway, I do not want to limit progress in any way, so I'll wait how
this develops, and will probably send a patch for LAR2 in the coming months.
"I do consider assignment statements and pointer variables to be among
computer science's most valuable treasures."
-- Donald E. Knuth
More information about the coreboot