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

Stefan Reinauer stepan at coresystems.de
Sun Feb 28 03:23:04 CET 2010

On 2/28/10 3:04 AM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> IMHO the time to change anything in CBFS is over. It is too widely used
> to change the in-ROM format in a way that is not 100% backwards
> compatible. Your patch might be backwards compatible, but some of the
> proposed extensions (option ROM naming and separate PCI ID storage) are not.
There is no way to do partly flash updates of CBFS _or_ LAR formatted
coreboot images, so how widely is used just does not really matter. At
this time a flash update always updates the complete coreboot image.
Until that changes, we don't break anything.

> OTOH, if we change the in-ROM format, we might as well fix the design
> shortcomings I mentioned back in the LAR+SELF debate. AFAIK modern CBFS
> still is a stripped down LAR+SELF.
What's missing in your opinion?


More information about the coreboot mailing list