> On 3/9/10, Ed Swierk <eswi...@aristanetworks.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 8:58 AM, ron minnich <rminn...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Just got a new nehalem box in for test yesterday. Experiences so far: >>> >>> 1. POST from power-on takes 45 seconds. *45 SECONDS*. Now, I had it >>> said to me at SCALE7x last year from someone from Intel that all new >>> BIOSes on Intel chips are really EFI underneath -- is this indicative >>> of what we are to expect? If so, it's awful. It's 15 times slower than >>> what we had ten years ago, and 50 times slower than what we can do >>> today on coreboot. >> >> As far as I can tell the sole purpose of EFI is to make it easier for >> hardware vendors to shovel more junk into the BIOS by removing the >> hurdle of hand-coding 16-bit assembly. >> >> But while EFI might accelerate the trend, it's not the only villain. >> Someone noticed a 9x growth in boot time on qemu recently >> (http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2010-03/msg00546.html ). >> Even on a virtual platform with no actual hardware to initialize, boot >> time will grow unless someone is actively pushing the other way. >> >> Ultimately the system board vendors are responsible for the BIOS in >> the boards we buy. They are the ones cutting deals with Intel and AMI >> and Phoenix, and can exert the necessary leverage. But they won't, >> until they see 1-second cold boot as a feature that will sell more >> boards. >> >> --Ed >>
Sorry about the double post. Something went wrong with my mail client. Anyway, perhaps these articles by vid is a nice addition: http://x86asm.net/articles/introduction-to-uefi/index.html http://x86asm.net/articles/uefi-programming-first-steps/index.html -Darmawan -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -= Human knowledge belongs to the world =- -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot