On 27.02.2010 16:09, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
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?
- I think Kevin might not like that idea. He's using the type in SeaBIOS.
- Maybe SeaBIOS can be changed? Who will do that?
[...] So I think we should keep it for now and keep the possibility to drop it in mind.
IMHO the time to change anything in CBFS is over. It is too widely used to change the in-ROM format in a way that is not 100% backwards compatible. Your patch might be backwards compatible, but some of the proposed extensions (option ROM naming and separate PCI ID storage) are not.
OTOH, if we change the in-ROM format, we might as well fix the design shortcomings I mentioned back in the LAR+SELF debate. AFAIK modern CBFS still is a stripped down LAR+SELF.
My sincere apologies if I missed some important development or misunderstood the proposed changes.
Regards, Carl-Daniel