Hi, On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 05:05:03PM +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote: > > I have a bit of a hick-up with removing the coreboot table, as this > renders utility like flashrom (in some cases) and nvramtool (in all > cases) pretty much unusable.
I don't propose removing the coreboot table. In most cases it is highly desireable, but in a few ones it's not that useful and is just taking space. A build option that defaults to 'yes' sounds like a sane way to support all use cases. Note that the code removed by my last patch doesn't disable any functionality, it just stops passing a pointer around which wasn't being used for anything. > Also, I think bootloader stuff is libpayload/filo/grub2 territory. How do you define "bootloader stuff"? coreboot looks a lot like a simplified bootloader to me. And it does support loading things that are usually loaded by GRUB, like Invaders, Memtest86 or even Linux. > Glad to see your patch is able to reduce the code size though; even if > it comes at some cost. Indeed, things come at a price. Such cost would be bearable for some and unacceptable for others. I really think having the user evaluate it is the best way to serve everyone. Hey, at least your users are system builders and have a clue on what they're doing ;-) -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
