Re: RFC on coreboot forms representation

Hi Angel,

thanks for your elaborate mail, I know it takes a lot of time to
write everything down. Time that I lack right now ;) I read it all
a few days ago, tried to find time to answer, now Martin beat me to
it.

I guess the domain-specific language for this will take some time
to figure out.

Right now, the naming question is bothering me:

On 16.11.23 17:29, Angel Pons wrote:
> (something like "option table" wouldn't be great because it can be
> confused with the existing CMOS option table subsystem)...

It would serve the same purpose and inherit most of the concept, so
why not keep the name? Maybe it should be "option table v2" or so, but
I see no reason not to replace the original one. We also had other sub-
systems re-invented over the years without making up new names.

Nico

_______________________________________________
coreboot mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]