[coreboot] Coreboot-v2 patch rom names
ward at gnu.org
Wed Feb 6 23:16:17 CET 2008
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 12:22:11PM -0700, Myles Watson wrote:
> > That would work - but what about other payloads? Maybe we could use a
> > naming scheme like
> > Config-buildrom-$(PAYLOAD).lb
> > and then make buildrom look for such a file, perhaps falling back to the
> > generic Config.lb file if it does not exist?
> That could work. Right now the Config-lab.lb for each architecture is a
> fallback image with compression enabled. Maybe Config-lab.lb is not the
> right name. Any payload that doesn't use compression will need to use the
> Config.lb, and any payload that uses compression should use Config-lab.lb
> In some cases the ROM size is larger for the Config-lab.lb as well.
About that - eventually I'd like to have the ROM size an option that can be
set in the buildrom menus. Each payload/board combination should default to
something reasonable (say, 1MB for an LAB payload), but it should be
> I thought about naming them Config-ROM_SIZE-COMPRESSION.lb:
> Config-1M-lzma.lb or
> But it seemed uglier.
Yeah. I don't really like that.
> The two attached patches implement the switch, the buildrom patch depends on
> the Coreboot patch being applied first to create a revision 3091. I tested
> it by not updating the revision, then manually doing "svn up", applying the
> patch to Coreboot, and rebuilding.
> There is a lot of cleaning up that could be done in the Config.lb files, but
> I only touched the ones that buildrom uses, so I wouldn't break anything
> Suggestions are welcome.
> Signed-off-by: Myles Watson <myles at pel.cs.byu.edu>
This looks good to me.
Acked-by: Ward Vandewege <ward at gnu.org>
Ward Vandewege <ward at fsf.org>
Free Software Foundation - Senior System Administrator
More information about the coreboot