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

[Kevin O'Connor]

On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 04:09:50PM +0100, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
> 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.

I would like to see the type field dropped from CBFS.  I think storing
a type is unintuitive as filenames are both more powerful and better
understood.  As Peter mentions, the filename is already the
determining factor to loading a rom.

> * Maybe SeaBIOS can be changed? Who will do that?

SeaBIOS doesn't look at the type field.  There is no reason to.

-Kevin