Re: [coreboot] cbfs XIP patch

[ron minnich]

On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Peter Stuge  wrote:
> Patrick Georgi wrote:
> > The "next" field has the disadvantage that we can't simply hot-update
> > anymore, as we'd have to change data (instead of merely adding it).
>
> ron minnich wrote:
> > NEXT pointer
> >
> > All of these will work.
>
> 'next' foils the desirable property that single files in cbfs can be
> updated in the flash chip without touching any other regions.

Isn't this somewhat mythical anyway? how many flash chips support
'erase byte' at this point (I honestly don't know!). I.e., isn't an
update of any one byte in a block going to wipe out a whole block? How
many cbfs files fit on neat 64k or 16k or whatever boundaries?

I don't know these answers, but you do :-)

ron