[coreboot] [PATCH] fix normal vs. fallback
stefan.reinauer at coresystems.de
Fri Jul 9 17:55:21 CEST 2010
On 7/9/10 3:36 PM, Myles Watson wrote:
> 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.
the normal/fallback selection and the cmos settings are living in
completely distinct spaces. normal/fallback is not covered by the
checksum. So I don't think this applies here. At least not until we
create this necessity. I think we want to be able to use CMOS options
without normal / fallback and the other way round, so we need to be careful.
More information about the coreboot