ron minnich wrote: > 1. ROMFS->LCAR > > Let's not make this a file system.
Hmm, I remember Jordan didn't like the archive concept, and ISTR he prefered fs, as suggested by the romfs name too. I think an *fs name makes sense when there is a master structure like here. > It's just a set of managed pointers to data. We don't need ext2 > extended headers. I agree, but datablobs is not a great name either.. :) > 2. ORBC->LAR2 Shouldn't 1. and 2. be in sync somehow? > 3. consider stupid hardware design which makes most of ROM > non-memory-accessible but at the same time don't do that because it > is really slow. You all confused me now :-) Yeah. I don't know. :\ It depends on how early in the stack this problem is relevant. For coreboot+SeaBIOS it will never become an issue. Want to make use of more stuff - then maybe you need better hardware. Does that seem fair? I do however think it would suck to intentionally regress on m57sli, or any other board. > Nothing is going to be perfect, As for the name I can not stress enough how important it is to come as close as possible to something unique, especially when there is a unique purpose (and noone has publically standardized firmware flash chip content before), and this particular area is a very confusing minefield for newcomers already. We lose way more by ignoring that and making things worse than we can ever gain from the best technical storage solution. :\ Even if we can't find the perfect name we will suffer for sure if we have a name which can be confused or misunderstood in any way. A good name alone lowers the knowledge barrier for many. > but I have been using LCAR2 for a week and it's way better than > what v2 has now. I think it's the right direction. Sounds great! //Peter -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
