[coreboot] [PATCH] cbfs, smaller api, more types

[Jordan Crouse]

Stefan Reinauer wrote:
> Jordan, what do you think? Would it make sense to drop either name or
> type from CBFS? I am hesitating, but maybe you have some reasons to
> definitely keep it?

I feel silly speaking like I'm a guru that somebody climbed a mountain 
to consult with, but here we go.

I think it is okay to just use name matching.  My intent with the type 
was to have an integer that could be quickly parsed in a ROM for Bayou - 
"Give me all the payloads" or some such.  I realize  that isn't as 
flexible as the names, so if everybody can agree on standard extensions 
and the extra processing time to parse the string, then carry on.

Please leave a banana in the bowl on your way out.

Jordan

> On 2/27/10 3:51 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
>> Stefan Reinauer wrote:
>>   
>>> Since we only do name based matching in coreboot anyways, do you
>>> suggest we drop the type field?
>>>     
>> Well, yes, I think I am..
>>
>> I know there are cases when it's handy to inspect the type, but
>> unless the type is the _only_ thing that matters it isn't so
>> intuitive to have one at all.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>   
> * Payloads may want to optimize their walking using the type.
> * in case of some file types it may be interesting to load all of a type
> from cbfs (ie. public crypto keys)
> * I think Kevin might not like that idea. He's using the type in SeaBIOS.
> * Maybe SeaBIOS can be changed? Who will do that?
> * Maybe we should keep the type on the cbfstool command line so we can
> keep the additional error checking it allows us, but keep it out of the
> coreboot file format.
> 
> So I think we should keep it for now and keep the possibility to drop it
> in mind.
> 
>