On 28.02.2010 03:23, Stefan Reinauer wrote: > On 2/28/10 3:04 AM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > >> 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. >> >> > There is no way to do partly flash updates of CBFS _or_ LAR formatted > coreboot images, so how widely is used just does not really matter. At > this time a flash update always updates the complete coreboot image. > Until that changes, we don't break anything. >
Actually, partial flash updates work just fine with LAR and if someone is interested, I'll gladly demonstrate this. >> 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. >> >> > What's missing in your opinion? > I didn't know that CBFS doesn't support partial flash updates. Let's just add that to the list of things I'd like to change. Back then I wrote up a detailed review of LAR+SELF/CBFS, and it may even have been in the wiki, but I couldn't find it during a quick search right now. Anyway, I do not want to limit progress in any way, so I'll wait how this develops, and will probably send a patch for LAR2 in the coming months. 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
