On 28.02.2010 03:23, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
On 2/28/10 3:04 AM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
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.
There is no way to do partly flash updates of CBFS _or_ LAR formatted coreboot images, so how widely is used just does not really matter. At this time a flash update always updates the complete coreboot image. Until that changes, we don't break anything.
Actually, partial flash updates work just fine with LAR and if someone is interested, I'll gladly demonstrate this.
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.
What's missing in your opinion?
I didn't know that CBFS doesn't support partial flash updates. Let's just add that to the list of things I'd like to change. Back then I wrote up a detailed review of LAR+SELF/CBFS, and it may even have been in the wiki, but I couldn't find it during a quick search right now. Anyway, I do not want to limit progress in any way, so I'll wait how this develops, and will probably send a patch for LAR2 in the coming months.
Regards, Carl-Daniel