On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 06:09:55PM +, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Arthur Heymans wrote:
> > This breaks compatibility with very old coreboot build (build before
> > fb5d5b16 "2015-07-14, cbtable: describe boot media").
>
> Is that really acceptable in SeaBIOS master at some random time?
>
> At the
Hi,
Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> Note that the linux kernel's in-kernel interfaces are explicitly *not*
> backward compatible though.
..
> I fail to see the problem. seabios is part of the firmware,
So that's important, I hope to help create some understanding:
coreboot and SeaBIOS are cleanly
Hi,
> > As far I know there is no policy on that written down somewhere. In
> > general we try avoid breaking backward compatibility (and thus requiring
> > lockstep updates). But maintaining backward compatibility has a cost
> > too, so this isn't set in stone.
>
> Sure, but backwards
Hi Gerd,
Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> > > This breaks compatibility with very old coreboot build (build before
> > > fb5d5b16 "2015-07-14, cbtable: describe boot media").
> >
> > Is that really acceptable in SeaBIOS master at some random time?
>
> As far I know there is no policy on that written down
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 06:09:55PM +, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Arthur Heymans wrote:
> > This breaks compatibility with very old coreboot build (build before
> > fb5d5b16 "2015-07-14, cbtable: describe boot media").
>
> Is that really acceptable in SeaBIOS master at some random time?
As far I
Arthur Heymans wrote:
> This breaks compatibility with very old coreboot build (build before
> fb5d5b16 "2015-07-14, cbtable: describe boot media").
Is that really acceptable in SeaBIOS master at some random time?
At the very least I would expect a flag day with advance publicity.
One way of
On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 10:28:26AM +0200, Arthur Heymans wrote:
> The "cbfs master header" cbfs file is considered a legacy feature in
> coreboot and is planned for removal in the master branch. Since 2015
> the coreboot tables have exported info about the active cbfs.
>
> This change uses the
