Furquan Shaikh has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/46605 )
Change subject: lib/libpayload: Replace strapping_ids with new board configuration entry ......................................................................
Patch Set 9:
(2 comments)
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/46605/9/payloads/libpayload/include... File payloads/libpayload/include/sysinfo.h:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/46605/9/payloads/libpayload/include... PS9, Line 111: UNDEFINED_FW_CONFIG Is the payload expected to test whether the fw_config is all 1s before treating it as a valid value? One special thing about fw_config compared to the other IDs is that it is a bit-field member and so the payload will have to be careful about treating all 1s as all 0s. Should we just set the UNDEFINED_FW_CONFIG as all 0s instead here?
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/46605/9/src/lib/coreboot_table.c File src/lib/coreboot_table.c:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/46605/9/src/lib/coreboot_table.c@a2... PS9, Line 222: if (bid == UNDEFINED_STRAPPING_ID) One slight change in behavior with the new code is that all the IDs are now added to coreboot tables even if the value is UNDEFINED_STRAPPING_ID. I am guessing there are no side-effects of doing that?