Martin Roth via coreboot wrote: > > Your concern is valid and I think a key point. CBOR may not be bad > > over a socket, but such a complex and arbitrarily extensible format > > is much too error prone to be a good technical choice during boot. > > So if the idea is to create a payload handoff format that can be > shared and used by multiple different firmware packages, do you have > a better option? Yes, coreboot can just continue with just the > coreboot tables, but that seems a little like sticking our head in > the sand and refusing to recognize that other boot firmware exists.
I'd ask what other boot firmware is missing from coreboot tables for them to be universally acceptable. > > I agree that it could be a step forward, but I think the devil is in > > the details. CBOR data structures can also be unneccessarily complex > > and error prone, beyond the parser itself. > > So maybe we try to limit the complexity? I'm not really familar with > CBOR, so I don't know the issues with it. CBOR (RFC 8949) is a binary serialization of JSON with some extensions. So "CBOR" itself says nothing about the data within. > Intel did say that they were willing to look at other alternatives if > we had any. That's a positive signal! I propose that coreboot tables are a good alternative - fight me! :) > I hope nobody takes any of this as criticism - I appreciate the > open discussion, and am sincerely looking for the best path forward here. Not at all. Let's see if coreboot tables can grow to cover all needs? Kind regards //Peter _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
