[coreboot] v3 build process and lar flags
mylesgw at gmail.com
Sat Feb 23 00:28:55 CET 2008
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger [mailto:c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net]
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 4:47 PM
> To: Myles Watson
> Cc: 'Coreboot'
> Subject: Re: [coreboot] v3 build process and lar flags
> On 21.02.2008 17:16, Myles Watson wrote:
> > It seems like the build would be cleaner if we had two lists of files to
> > to the lar and added them in two steps.
> > lar -c coreboot.rom $(NOCOMPRESS_FILES) -s $(ROM_SIZE) ...
> > lar -a coreboot.rom $(COMPRESS_FLAG) $(COMPRESSIBLE_FILES)
> > The unfortunate thing with the nocompress:file:lar_path style is that it
> > makes it difficult to add support for other flags, unless you specify a
> > ordering. For example imagine if you wanted to add a flag specifying to
> > the file as close to the end as possible, etc.
> I have a patch which changes lar syntax to something more reasonable and
> standard. The new syntax is
> That solves the delimiter problem quite nicely.
The per-file options were fragile because there was only support for one at
the beginning of the option, and to add another you'd either have to specify
an ordering, or check all possible orderings.
> > The reason I was interested is I still think the cleanest way is to
> > repacking of lar files (i.e., no intermediate format), but I don't see a
> > good way to add that option with the current usage model for lar.
> --exporttolar and --importfromlar?
Sorry I missed this before. Here are a few comments:
1. There's no need to export if you can import into a new lar.
2. I didn't mean that I couldn't think of a name for the option. I just
meant that since we were using per-file options there would probably need to
be a per-file option for which lar to search for a file you wanted to add.
If we remove the per-file option and expect people to use multiple runs of
lar, it makes it much easier to add something like:
lar -c newlar.rom -L oldlar.rom normal payload/segment0
Another problem I was having was whether I should search the lar first, then
the filesystem. It's a lot easier to just look in one place, and fail if
it's not found. It also makes it less surprising to users.
More information about the coreboot