ron minnich wrote: > peter, you are right about CBOR, and that says to me it does not > really meet the original goal of self-describing data.
Hm, whose goal is that? Anyway, using some data structure serialized in CBOR requires defining the structure somewhere. Using coreboot tables requires definitions too, they are currently defined in coreboot, standardizing coreboot tables would probably see them move to a repo of their own. > But coreboot tables, at least in my understanding, is also not > self-describing. I don't know? What do you mean by self-describing actually? > Do you have some thoughts on a good format that is self-describing? So what's the expectation there; what does a self-describing format enable or need to enable? And what's the complexity tradeoff involved? As Arthur pointed out, coreboot tables have the quite significant advantage of being very very simple to read and write. I think this is still interesting to pursue: > > > 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? > > > > I'd ask what other boot firmware is missing from coreboot tables for > > them to be universally acceptable. Martin wrote that the goal is to create a handoff format that can be shared and I'm asking what coreboot tables are missing to serve others, because I think we have a really good (simple) technical solution there. //Peter _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
