Hi,
thanks for your replies :)
On 12.11.22 19:43, bzt wrote:
From OS point of view, multiboot2 has currently all tables what an OS needs...
I agree, I see no reason for new tags, but if you decide to do so...
ask multiboot2 spec owners to create a special "bootloader specific tag"
Please don't, never ever do that! That kills all the benefits of a standard. Instead decide on a bootloader independent, common tag, and ask he Multiboot2 spec owners to add THAT.
Currently, I see potentially three types of tags/entries:
1. Those common to all use-cases, i.e. useful for OS and simpler payload loading. Basically what is in Multiboot2 already.
2. Probably some that are common to payloads / firmware frameworks. These would have to be standardized.
3. Some that are implementation specific. Looking at cbtables, there are entries for coreboot specific things like FMAP, vboot, ... It doesn't seem reasonable to me atm. to expect others to implement such things.
IMO, if something is missing in the current spec, it's 2. that we have to worry about. I can think of two options right now: 1. Try to get things standardized directly in Multiboot2; 2. standardize it somewhere else (e.g. osfw.foundation), presuming that we could get a tag (or maybe a range?) into Multiboot2 specifically reserved for this.
Anyway, my original intention was to provide an alternative standard to help with the Universal Payload effort. We'll have to see if people want to talk about it, and if they'd miss anything in Multiboot2.
Nico