On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Myles Watson <[email protected]> wrote: >> > It makes me wonder if we should allow people to add payloads this way >> > too. Is cbfs flexible enough to allow us to have one payload for >> > normal and fallback? >> >> Sure. it's just a name. It's all in how you walk the file system. > > You're right. The correct question was something more along the lines of > "How are we going to make it intuitive for people to be able to use the same > payload for multiple images?" > > Are we going to always search for fallback/foo if we can't find normal/foo? > What about /foo? > > I think it should be implemented once somewhere so that it's consistent.
The cbfs types are meant to be extended as needed. A type for fallback is a good idea. CBFS_TYPE_STAGE_FALLBACK? I don't think that we are using the stage concept yet but I think that it still fits v2. I wonder if the failover/fallback stuff can be cleaned up to be more like v3? Marc -- http://marcjonesconsulting.com -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
