Re: RFC on coreboot forms representation

Justttt chip in a bit for the naming - if you know the background of how
the name came out, it was just our engineers had little bit of fun while
cracking the solution :D
At least it has some flare to it, maybe we are just too serious now… :P

On Wed 22. Nov 2023 at 00:06, Nico Huber <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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]
>

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