On 7/9/10 3:36 PM, Myles Watson wrote: > On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 7:10 AM, Peter Stuge <[email protected]> wrote: >> Stefan Reinauer wrote: >>> Even though the normal/fallback mechanism uses CMOS, it does not >>> require an option table. >>> Are there advantages in changing this? >> One advantage would be that any use of NVRAM always implies having an >> option table, which I think makes sense. Somewhere it needs to be >> specified what bit(s) the mechanism uses, better in an option table >> than hardcoded IMO. > That was my thought. It should be obvious when we're using/corrupting > values, to minimize surprises.
the normal/fallback selection and the cmos settings are living in completely distinct spaces. normal/fallback is not covered by the checksum. So I don't think this applies here. At least not until we create this necessity. I think we want to be able to use CMOS options without normal / fallback and the other way round, so we need to be careful. Stefan -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
