On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 04:09:50PM +0100, Stefan Reinauer wrote: > Jordan, what do you think? Would it make sense to drop either name or > type from CBFS? I am hesitating, but maybe you have some reasons to > definitely keep it? > > 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? > > > * Payloads may want to optimize their walking using the type. > * in case of some file types it may be interesting to load all of a type > from cbfs (ie. public crypto keys) > * I think Kevin might not like that idea. He's using the type in SeaBIOS.
I would like to see the type field dropped from CBFS. I think storing a type is unintuitive as filenames are both more powerful and better understood. As Peter mentions, the filename is already the determining factor to loading a rom. > * Maybe SeaBIOS can be changed? Who will do that? SeaBIOS doesn't look at the type field. There is no reason to. -Kevin -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
