On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:43 AM, ron minnich <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 8:36 AM, Myles Watson <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:33 AM, ron minnich <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> So this scenario requires that we have two cbfs file headers, and data >>> somewhere else, not necessarily contiguous with the >>> header. Does the cbfstool currently create this kind of image? >> I don't think so. > > I don't think it does either. > >> >> I think CBFS requires the header to be contiguous with the data. We >> could change it, but that seems like a fundamental redesign. > > Agreed. > >> >> It would be easier to walk if all the headers were contiguous. > > Agreed. But then you have to leave room somewhere for all possible > headers, which means you have to reserve part of flash for headers > only, which is something I would rather not do. Yes.
> Many of the proposed changes will result in balooning cbfs code, which > I think we should avoid. I'm not even sure that arbitrary file name > lengths (which we have now) are a good idea :-) I agree. I think 16 bytes could be plenty...32 if someone complains that there aren't enough file names in 16 characters. Myles -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
