[coreboot] [PATCH] fix normal vs. fallback
mylesgw at gmail.com
Fri Jul 9 15:36:16 CEST 2010
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 7:10 AM, Peter Stuge <peter at stuge.se> wrote:
> Stefan Reinauer wrote:
>> Even though the normal/fallback mechanism uses CMOS, it does not
>> require an option table.
>> Are there advantages in changing this?
> One advantage would be that any use of NVRAM always implies having an
> option table, which I think makes sense. Somewhere it needs to be
> specified what bit(s) the mechanism uses, better in an option table
> than hardcoded IMO.
That was my thought. It should be obvious when we're using/corrupting
values, to minimize surprises.
More information about the coreboot