On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 11:09 AM, ron minnich rminn...@gmail.com wrote:
The next big step in my view is setting a flash-friendly value of zero.
Do you mean flashrom-friendly value of 0xFF?
--
coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 10:32 AM, ron minnich rminn...@gmail.com wrote:
attached.
This came up when cbfs (correctly) diagnosed a rom as corrupt ... it
was a bug in cbfs, but that's how it's supposed to work -- catch a bad
rom at build time, not boot time.
+ csize = headersize(name);
+
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 6:05 AM, Myles Watson myle...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 10:32 AM, ron minnich rminn...@gmail.com wrote:
attached.
This came up when cbfs (correctly) diagnosed a rom as corrupt ... it
was a bug in cbfs, but that's how it's supposed to work -- catch a bad
+ csize = headersize(name);
+
+ strcpy(c-magic, COMPONENT_MAGIC);
+
+ c-offset = htonl(csize);
I think this code would be clearer without csize.
+ c-offset = htonl(headersize(name));
csize is used one other place in that function. I did not change it as
attached.
This came up when cbfs (correctly) diagnosed a rom as corrupt ... it
was a bug in cbfs, but that's how it's supposed to work -- catch a bad
rom at build time, not boot time.
ron
cbfsfix.diff
Description: Binary data
--
coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
This came up when cbfs (correctly) diagnosed a rom as corrupt ... it
was a bug in cbfs, but that's how it's supposed to work -- catch a bad
rom at build time, not boot time.
I still think the right fix is to fix cbfs file names to some value --
e.g. 32 chars -- which would remove a lot of
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Myles Watson myle...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree. Let's do that first, since it would simplify this fix. I'll
review and test.
Let's see what other comments we get ... anyone out there see an issue
with 32 byte character names? If you want, we can go with 40,
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 10:08:47AM -0700, ron minnich wrote:
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Myles Watson myle...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree. Let's do that first, since it would simplify this fix. I'll
review and test.
Let's see what other comments we get ... anyone out there see an
8 matches
Mail list logo
