On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[email protected]> wrote:
> The other question is whether we want to use streams unconditionally. > I'd prefer to use such streams only in emergencies (crappy hardware). great! how much crappy hardware is there. Is it only a part of the past or will we see it in future. If it is only misdesign for past boards then there is an easy solution. >> let's get it working first. >> > > I don't understand this comment. If it does not work, why would we > commit it to the v2 tree? OK, first, it's working in my tree. It's a huge improvement over LAR. It's 10 times huge over what v2 does now. I've got a patch that lets us use the old way and LCAR. (I like the name). > Since v3 already has LAR, any replacement has to demonstrate that is an > improvement over LAR while not introducing additional > limitations/problems. This is a huge improvement over LAR. Also, the code to come is design so that it is 100% backwards compatible and LCAR is by default *off*. You only use it if you want it. Hopefully, over time, 100% of us want it. > Don't get me wrong. Substantial parts of the ROMFS design are really > worth having (and overlap with the LAR design), but I hope the > LAR->ROMFS move is not brownian motion motivated by the intrinsic > coolness of a new tool. And if someone designs LAR-NG as part of GSoC, > will we switch (again)? It's worth having. It's why I did not back-port LAR to v2. > Can we separate the "pointer to something" patch out and handle/commit > it before ROMFS? I can dig up my ancient v3 patch for this. I am not doing this for v3. This is a v2 patch. > I can see roughly a factor of 20 slowdown. That's a bit excessive for my > taste. Again, is this stupid hardware design something we only see on one bad board or might we see it again? Would be nice to know :-) > What about 0x4c415232 instead? That's "LAR2". harder to remember but I can entertain it. > We need a policy for future romfs_header variants, too. Should they be > backwards compatible? Do we want ext2-style read/write feature flags? no. no. no. no. no. no. no. no. I'm not even that big a fan of versioning in the current design, but there you are. :-) ron -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
