Julius Werner has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/34367 )
Change subject: util: Add new util to make a payload for QEMU/AArch64 ......................................................................
Patch Set 2:
I would vote for not reusing the name. LinuxBoot is its own project, so calling it Linux would be confusing imo.
Well, what is payload/external/LinuxBoot supposed to be, then? Is it supposed to be purely for LinuxBoot (meaning something built off the code referred to from linuxboot.org) and nothing else? In that case, we should have something else to build other payloads. Or is it supposed to be the general Linux-as-payload building option, which allows you to either provide your own kernel/fdt/initramfs or select from a range of predefined ones (where only LinuxBoot/u-root happens to be implemented at the moment)? In that case, it shouldn't be called LinuxBoot. It would be okay to call the suboption that builds the LinuxBoot/u-root-specific initramfs (i.e. the thing that's currently called CONFIG_LINUXBOOT_UROOT) "LinuxBoot", but not the whole thing.
(I have to admit I don't actually know what the stuff at https://github.com/linuxboot/linuxboot does or how it relates to u-root. It looks like the payload Makefile/Kconfig doesn't refer to that at all, only to the u-root repo? Is one a dependency of the other? Either way, both are pretty clearly proper nouns referring to one specific project with its own code base, not a general concept, so a payload configuration for a general concept shouldn't be named after them.)