On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Peter Stuge <[email protected]> wrote: > Myles Watson wrote: >> >> It looks like there are still many references to romfs in src/lib/. >> > >> > Hm? grep gives me .svn/text-base/romfs.c.svn-base but nothing else. >> > What files do you see? >> >> my...@orangutan:svn$ grep -Ir romfs src/lib/ | grep -v svn | head >> src/lib/romfs.c:#include <romfs.h> > > Thanks! I had deleted but not committed the delete. > > >> > Can someone comment on whether it's simply safe to change that to >> > a fixed coreboot.cbfs filename? >> >> I think we should just make it output coreboot.rom and forget the >> fs extension. There's no reason to confuse people with two output >> files based on a config option. > > I think there is, if the file format changes. If the contents is > always the same type I agree it's better to have only one name.
In this case the difference is that one doesn't have a format. In both cases the bootblock is in the same place and the code inside the image has to know where everything else is. Thanks, Myles -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
