On 14.06.2008 21:53, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
Peter Stuge wrote:
On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 09:25:43PM +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
This heuristic is no longer good enough. Any ideas for a nice and simple coreboot signature?
Yes. A LAR file with that information in the image.
Ah of course - yes for v3 that's perfect.
What about v2?
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)
Regards, Carl-Daniel