Re: [coreboot] [PATCH] superiotool: libsuperiodetect

On 6/30/10 4:16 PM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: >> 15kb lzma compressed is nothing. >> >> > 8 kB more or less in a recovery payload of a coreboot image are not > negligible IMHO. > > In normal OS environments people don't use compressed binaries, and > there a 2 MB size increase for flash

Re: [coreboot] [PATCH] superiotool: libsuperiodetect

On 30.06.2010 14:51, Stefan Reinauer wrote: > On 6/30/10 2:35 PM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > >> Using the superiotool code to detect SuperI/O chips can be really useful >> even for applications besides superiotool, e.g. flashrom. >> The biggest hurdle right now is the excessive size of the

Re: [coreboot] [PATCH] superiotool: libsuperiodetect

On 6/30/10 2:35 PM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > Using the superiotool code to detect SuperI/O chips can be really useful > even for applications besides superiotool, e.g. flashrom. > The biggest hurdle right now is the excessive size of the superiotool > binary (>2.2 MB) which is still ~15 kB a

[coreboot] [PATCH] superiotool: libsuperiodetect

Using the superiotool code to detect SuperI/O chips can be really useful even for applications besides superiotool, e.g. flashrom. The biggest hurdle right now is the excessive size of the superiotool binary (>2.2 MB) which is still ~15 kB after lzma compression. That's simply unacceptable for a li