build service results for r4085

[coreboot information]

Dear coreboot readers!

This is the automatic build system of coreboot.

The developer "stepan" checked in revision 4085 to
the coreboot repository. This caused the following 
changes:

Change Log:
* commit previously forgotten romfs.txt
* fix a copy & paste error in src/lib/romfs.c

Signed-off-by: Stefan Reinauer 
Acked-by: Stefan Reinauer

Build Log:
Compilation of motorola:sandpointx3_altimus_mpc7410 is still broken
See the error log at http://qa.coreboot.org/log_buildbrd.php?revision=4085&device=sandpointx3...

If something broke during this checkin please be a pain 
in stepan's neck until the issue is fixed.

If this issue is not fixed within 24h the revision should 
be backed out.

Best regards,
     coreboot automatic build system

[Peter Stuge]

coreboot information wrote:
> commit previously forgotten romfs.txt
> fix a copy & paste error in src/lib/romfs.c

Great! Now, is there any more work pending, or is it time for the
rename?

//Peter

[Patrick Georgi]

Am 08.04.2009 12:25, schrieb Peter Stuge:
> coreboot information wrote:
> > commit previously forgotten romfs.txt
> > fix a copy & paste error in src/lib/romfs.c
>
> Great! Now, is there any more work pending, or is it time for the
> rename?

No more work pending.

There are some things left, eg. migrating all boards over, so we can kill
off the band aids that keep the stuff alive for both oldstyle and newstyle
rom layouts, and simplify the configuration system somewhat. I propose to
do this after the rename (all those CONFIG_ROMFS across the tree that would
have to be renamed then...)

I don't care about naming, so I'm definitely the wrong one for the job. It
seems you care, are you willing to do it? I'll happily review patches (and
ack if good).

Regards,
Patrick

[ron minnich]

On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Patrick Georgi  wrote:
> I don't care about naming, so I'm definitely the wrong one for the job. It
> seems you care, are you willing to do it? I'll happily review patches (and
> ack if good).

and the rename is ROMFS->CBFS in the right case everywhere; all error
messages etc.

What do you want to rename romtool to?

ron

[Peter Stuge]

Patrick Georgi wrote:
> No more work pending.

Cool!
> I don't care about naming, so I'm definitely the wrong one for the
> job. It seems you care, are you willing to do it?

Yes.
> I'll happily review patches (and ack if good).

Excellent!

ron minnich wrote:
> and the rename is ROMFS->CBFS in the right case everywhere; all
> error messages etc.

Yep, that's the idea.
> What do you want to rename romtool to?

I think cbfstool works, another slightly wilder idea is mkcbfs
although the program does more than just create initially so the mkfs
analogy doesn't really work so well.

//Peter

[ron minnich]

On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 7:15 AM, Peter Stuge  wrote:
> I think cbfstool works, another slightly wilder idea is mkcbfs
> although the program does more than just create initially so the mkfs
> analogy doesn't really work so well.

how about just naming the tool cbfs? cbfstool is so long ... :-)

ron

[Peter Stuge]

ron minnich wrote:
> > I think cbfstool works,
>
> how about just naming the tool cbfs? cbfstool is so long ... :-)

Sure, that's short and sweet.

//Peter

[Russell Whitaker]

On Sun, 12 Apr 2009, Peter Stuge wrote:
> ron minnich wrote:
> > > I think cbfstool works,
> >
> > how about just naming the tool cbfs? cbfstool is so long ... :-)
>
> Sure, that's short and sweet.

Why not cbtool?

Russ

[ron minnich]

On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Russell Whitaker  wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009, Peter Stuge wrote:
> > ron minnich wrote:
> > > > I think cbfstool works,
> > >
> > > how about just naming the tool cbfs? cbfstool is so long ... :-)
> >
> > Sure, that's short and sweet.
>
> Why not cbtool?

I thought of that too. Well, you guys hash it out :-)

ron

[Russell Whitaker]

On Sun, 12 Apr 2009, ron minnich wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Russell Whitaker  wrote:
> > On Sun, 12 Apr 2009, Peter Stuge wrote:
> > > ron minnich wrote:
> > > > > I think cbfstool works,
> > > >
> > > > how about just naming the tool cbfs? cbfstool is so long ... :-)
> > >
> > > Sure, that's short and sweet.
> >
> > Why not cbtool?
>
> I thought of that too. Well, you guys hash it out :-)

I'm a bit confused.
I thought romfs -> cbfs per an earlier thread.
Is romtool the same as romfs?

Russ

[Peter Stuge]

Russell Whitaker wrote:
> > > > > > I think cbfstool works,
>
> I'm a bit confused.

I understand that, and apologize for this confusion.
> I thought romfs -> cbfs per an earlier thread.

That is completely correct. It was unfortunate to have so much work
pass by the list before the final name was established.
> Is romtool the same as romfs?

The original proposal consisted of a file format description suitable
for PC firmware, and source code for a utility that worked with this
file format. The file format was originally called ROMFS, and the
utility was originally called romtool. This code has been committed
to the svn repo, and various changes have been made to introduce the
use of this new file format, and the utility through coreboot.

The name of the file format is changing to CBFS. The description
remains the same, only the name changes. Likewise for the utility.
We're now discussing what would be a good name for the utility.

//Peter