[coreboot] patch: add romfs to V2
peter at stuge.se
Tue Mar 31 06:36:36 CEST 2009
ron minnich wrote:
> 1. ROMFS->LCAR
> Let's not make this a file system.
Hmm, I remember Jordan didn't like the archive concept, and ISTR he
prefered fs, as suggested by the romfs name too. I think an *fs name
makes sense when there is a master structure like here.
> It's just a set of managed pointers to data. We don't need ext2
> extended headers.
I agree, but datablobs is not a great name either.. :)
> 2. ORBC->LAR2
Shouldn't 1. and 2. be in sync somehow?
> 3. consider stupid hardware design which makes most of ROM
> non-memory-accessible but at the same time don't do that because it
> is really slow. You all confused me now :-)
Yeah. I don't know. :\ It depends on how early in the stack this
problem is relevant. For coreboot+SeaBIOS it will never become an
issue. Want to make use of more stuff - then maybe you need better
hardware. Does that seem fair?
I do however think it would suck to intentionally regress on m57sli,
or any other board.
> Nothing is going to be perfect,
As for the name I can not stress enough how important it is to come
as close as possible to something unique, especially when there is a
unique purpose (and noone has publically standardized firmware flash
chip content before), and this particular area is a very confusing
minefield for newcomers already. We lose way more by ignoring that
and making things worse than we can ever gain from the best technical
storage solution. :\
Even if we can't find the perfect name we will suffer for sure if we
have a name which can be confused or misunderstood in any way.
A good name alone lowers the knowledge barrier for many.
> but I have been using LCAR2 for a week and it's way better than
> what v2 has now. I think it's the right direction.
More information about the coreboot