Re: [coreboot] CBFS fix?

[ron minnich]

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
 wrote:
> Depending on how much space we're willing to lose, sacrificing the
> TOP-127 to TOP-16 for chipset stuff would probably be safe. TOP-15 to
> TOP would contain the jump and the pointer to the master header. There's
> one caveat, though: Short jumps can only jump -128 bytes and not
> further. That may or may not be a problem for startup code.

if we do our jobs right, and use cbfs to hold the ROMSTRAP, we ought
to be able not to do use TOP-127 to TOP-16. We can count on the
hardware vendors to come up with new challenges, so I no longer
believe anything is safe :-)

ron