On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 07:02:26PM -0400, Kevin O'Connor wrote: > For example, if the end consumer wants an smbios table,
This is exactly my point: End consumer is oblivious to these data structures, and rightly so. End consumer only wants $kernel to run and be featureful. $kernel wants BIOSisms to run and be featureful. We have to provide BIOSisms for $kernels for now. But we have a unique opportunity to revise these data structures now! By creating a good intermediate format, we will eventually be able to replace many if not all BIOSisms with something better documented, maybe even something simpler and certainly something nicer. > why translate from "coreboot->coreboot table->legacybios->smbios > table" when we can just go from "coreboot->smbios table"? Staying true to the design that coreboot is not a BIOS, but something better. > Adding an additional program in between seems to make things more > complicated. Short term, yes - slightly more complicated but much better structured. Long term the additional program dies. //Peter -- coreboot mailing list [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
