jordan.crouse at amd.com
Wed Apr 16 00:09:40 CEST 2008
On 15/04/08 15:20 -0600, Myles Watson wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: coreboot-bounces at coreboot.org [mailto:coreboot-bounces at coreboot.org]
> > On Behalf Of Peter Stuge
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 2:50 PM
> > To: coreboot at coreboot.org
> > Subject: Re: [coreboot] SELF/ELF/LAR
> > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 10:14:47AM -0600, Myles Watson wrote:
> > > On extraction: It seems to me that very few end users will want to
> > > extract payloads from a ROM. That seems like a task better suited
> > > for developers.
> > I think this will be much more popular than one would first believe.
> > > End users would more likely insert an ELF.
> > Yes, definitely, which is why I think it is important to not need an
> > extra tool/step.
> > > I'm unclear on this, because I don't understand the resistance to
> > > ELF segments in the LAR.
> > I guess because we've produced so inconsistent quality ELF files.
> That's where my confusion comes in. Bad ELF files which are parsed and
> added to the LAR cause failures at build time. Bad ELF files inserted
> without being parsed cause failures at boot time.
> I prefer Build-time failures to Boot-time failures.
There is no doubt that some parsing has to happen. It is highly unlikely
that any arbitrary ELF will be optimized for coreboot. The question
isn't that it will be parsed, but rather what will the end result of
said parse be? The main problem I have with the current scheme is that
when we move to three or four payloads, I think that managing the
segments and walking the lar will become very costly.
I would rather see us go back to a single LAR file per payload. Thats
not to say that LAR file wouldn't be pre-processed.
Systems Software Development Engineer
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
More information about the coreboot