[coreboot] [PATCH] cbfs, smaller api, more types

Stefan Reinauer stepan at coresystems.de
Sat Feb 27 16:09:50 CET 2010

Jordan, what do you think? Would it make sense to drop either name or
type from CBFS? I am hesitating, but maybe you have some reasons to
definitely keep it?

On 2/27/10 3:51 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Stefan Reinauer wrote:
>> Since we only do name based matching in coreboot anyways, do you
>> suggest we drop the type field?
> Well, yes, I think I am..
> I know there are cases when it's handy to inspect the type, but
> unless the type is the _only_ thing that matters it isn't so
> intuitive to have one at all.
> What do you think?
* Payloads may want to optimize their walking using the type.
* in case of some file types it may be interesting to load all of a type
from cbfs (ie. public crypto keys)
* I think Kevin might not like that idea. He's using the type in SeaBIOS.
* Maybe SeaBIOS can be changed? Who will do that?
* Maybe we should keep the type on the cbfstool command line so we can
keep the additional error checking it allows us, but keep it out of the
coreboot file format.

So I think we should keep it for now and keep the possibility to drop it
in mind.

More information about the coreboot mailing list