On 27.02.2010 16:09, Stefan Reinauer wrote: > On 2/27/10 3:51 PM, Peter Stuge wrote: > >> Stefan Reinauer wrote: >> >> >>> Since we only do name based matching in coreboot anyways, do you >>> suggest we drop the type field? >>> >>> >> Well, yes, I think I am.. >> >> I know there are cases when it's handy to inspect the type, but >> unless the type is the _only_ thing that matters it isn't so >> intuitive to have one at all. >> >> What do you think? >> >> > * I think Kevin might not like that idea. He's using the type in SeaBIOS. > * Maybe SeaBIOS can be changed? Who will do that? > [...] > So I think we should keep it for now and keep the possibility to drop it > in mind. >
IMHO the time to change anything in CBFS is over. It is too widely used to change the in-ROM format in a way that is not 100% backwards compatible. Your patch might be backwards compatible, but some of the proposed extensions (option ROM naming and separate PCI ID storage) are not. OTOH, if we change the in-ROM format, we might as well fix the design shortcomings I mentioned back in the LAR+SELF debate. AFAIK modern CBFS still is a stripped down LAR+SELF. My sincere apologies if I missed some important development or misunderstood the proposed changes. Regards, Carl-Daniel -- "I do consider assignment statements and pointer variables to be among computer science's most valuable treasures." -- Donald E. Knuth -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
