On Thu, 2018-04-05 at 11:34 -0500, Matt DeVillier wrote: > On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Nico Huber <nic...@gmx.de> wrote: > > On 05.04.2018 18:15, Matt DeVillier wrote: > > > my instinct is to put it in the 3rd party blobs repo, since it's > > added to > > > the CBFS w/o modification (ie, is treated like a blob), unlike > > the SPD hex > > > files which are selectively ordered and assembled into the > > spd.bin (ie, > > > treated as source). > > I would like to see them in 3rd party repo, as we don't process them, as Matt pointed out.
> > Files are concatenated, I don't see how this is treating sth. as > > source. > > They are changed from ASCII/text to binary format, so yes it's a source file. > > > > > > For the example case you sited of users building coreboot images > > for > > > Chromebooks (eg), they still need numerous other platform/device > > specific > > > blobs (ie, FSP), so having the vbt alone in the main repo is > > really not of > > > any consequence. > > > > That's very wrong. For instance I would have added Skylake+ > > backlight > > support to coreboot over a year ago if the information wasn't > > hidden in > > a secret lair. Not having information published early and > > conveniently > > accessible is always of consequence. You might just not know in > > what > > ways yet. ;) > > I meant having the vbt in the main repo vs blobs repo wasn't of any > consequence > for building upstream coreboot images, given that other blobs are > still needed. > But agree that either location is better than none :) > > > > I'd also like to see those other required blobs in the > > > 3rd party blobs repo, but that's an entirely separate issue :) > > > > True. > > > > Nico > > Patrick -- coreboot mailing list: email@example.com https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot