[coreboot] [PATCH] cbfs, smaller api, more types
kevin at koconnor.net
Sun Feb 28 15:50:34 CET 2010
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 04:09:50PM +0100, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
> Jordan, what do you think? Would it make sense to drop either name or
> type from CBFS? I am hesitating, but maybe you have some reasons to
> definitely keep it?
> On 2/27/10 3:51 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> > Stefan Reinauer wrote:
> >> Since we only do name based matching in coreboot anyways, do you
> >> suggest we drop the type field?
> > Well, yes, I think I am..
> > I know there are cases when it's handy to inspect the type, but
> > unless the type is the _only_ thing that matters it isn't so
> > intuitive to have one at all.
> > What do you think?
> * Payloads may want to optimize their walking using the type.
> * in case of some file types it may be interesting to load all of a type
> from cbfs (ie. public crypto keys)
> * I think Kevin might not like that idea. He's using the type in SeaBIOS.
I would like to see the type field dropped from CBFS. I think storing
a type is unintuitive as filenames are both more powerful and better
understood. As Peter mentions, the filename is already the
determining factor to loading a rom.
> * Maybe SeaBIOS can be changed? Who will do that?
SeaBIOS doesn't look at the type field. There is no reason to.
More information about the coreboot