Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
On 14.06.2008 21:53, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
I suggest using the same mechanism, wrapping the information in a lar header, making it a single file lar. The lar format can handle this, and we don't have to worry for different versions.
How about a generic bootblock/VPD signature instead? Having a short signature in the top 256 bytes or so will allow recognition of complete and incomplete (only partly mapped) coreboot images easily.
Proposal for signature formats:
4 bytes: "CB20" for v2.0 and "CB30" for v3.0
8 bytes (option 1): "CB203300" for v2.0, rev 3300
8 bytes (option 2): "coreboot"
16 bytes: "coreboot20r3300 " for v2.0, r3300 (note the space at the end for 5-digit svn revisions)
Top 256 bytes will not always work. The current trouble is due to the fact that we have some mainboards that need the information in a different place than others.
Other than that, we might indeed put the coreboot version into the firmware signature, too, if there's a reason to do so. Is there?
I miss the actual information in your suggestion, namely the mainboard vendor and type.
Since we already have LAR, using that format instead of yet another signature rule makes a lot of sense in my opinion.
Stefan