On 14.06.2008 21:53, Stefan Reinauer wrote: > Peter Stuge wrote: > >> On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 09:25:43PM +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote: >> >> >>>> This heuristic is no longer good enough. Any ideas for a nice and >>>> simple coreboot signature? >>>> >>>> >>> Yes. A LAR file with that information in the image. >>> >>> >> Ah of course - yes for v3 that's perfect. >> >> What about v2? >> >> >> > I suggest using the same mechanism, wrapping the information in a lar > header, making it a single file lar. The lar format can handle this, and > we don't have to worry for different versions. >
How about a generic bootblock/VPD signature instead? Having a short signature in the top 256 bytes or so will allow recognition of complete and incomplete (only partly mapped) coreboot images easily. Proposal for signature formats: 4 bytes: "CB20" for v2.0 and "CB30" for v3.0 8 bytes (option 1): "CB203300" for v2.0, rev 3300 8 bytes (option 2): "coreboot" 16 bytes: "coreboot20r3300 " for v2.0, r3300 (note the space at the end for 5-digit svn revisions) Regards, Carl-Daniel -- coreboot mailing list [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
