On Monday 31 March 2008, Jordan Crouse wrote:
On 29/03/08 02:26 +0100, Peter Stuge wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 08:42:41AM -0600, Jordan Crouse wrote:
> > On the other hand, CMOS is the agreed upon term for x86 platforms -
> > it sounds stupid to our ears, but we're not typical users. I would
> > stick with CMOS.
> I prefer to educate users rather than bending around a bad habit.
CMOS RAM is a krufty legacy from the 1980ies, well known by that name.
It simply _is_not_ NVRAM, like it appeared shortly after on SparcStations.
I'd really *love* to store OFW boot device, path and args in it, but those
lousy 112 Bytes are only good for tight bit packing.
This won't come as a surprise to anybody, but we
are lagging years behind
the other architectures. [...] I hate the idea of spending
valuable cycles thinking about other architectures when we're still so
far away from making our primary one work. Just my opinion.
Full Ack. I do not want to go on a crusade to preach an abstraction which is
not practical. The x86 PC does not have NVRAM as we know it; CMOS RAM is
different, because it is so much smaller, so let's call it differently.