On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 09:34:55PM +0000, Brendan Trotter wrote: > Sorry for the interruption, but...
All input is valuable! > On 2/9/08, ron minnich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There's only 2 things coreboot is missing. The first is an inbuilt > "update payload from <device>" utility This is basically the problem of flash chips still being too small. > The second thing that's missing is a "payload specification" This has come up before. We would very much appreciate help from anyone who has ideas about such a specification. > (with backward compatability) that allows payloads to be written by > anyone that always work reliably without any compatability > problems. I don't think this is really possible though. Even the C programming language changes over time. I agree with you that specifications should be very stable, but I believe it is impossible to create one that "always" works. At some point this will become a re-invention of OpenFirmware. Please prove me wrong though! :) //Peter -- coreboot mailing list coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
