Hi, On 27.06.2018 13:37, [email protected] wrote: > 26. Jun 2018 20:02 by [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>: >> For a case like this, where your choice is between two binary blobs (FSP >> or UEFI) I would argue that linuxboot is a better way to go.
Question is, what is this "case"? Chris, what is your motivation for the coreboot port? >> >> See > github.com/osresearch/heads <http://github.com/osresearch/heads>> >> or > linuxboot.org <http://linuxboot.org>> for more info. >> ron > > Doesn't linuxbootalso require the FSP blob for memory and silicon > initialization on any Intel board after Ivy Bridge? LinuxBoot is an ambiguous term. What Ron and Philipp suggest here is taking an existing UEFI, strip it down to something as light as core- boot and plug the Linux kernel in. If you just want to get rid of the bloated, often bug haunted, user visible parts of UEFI, this is a good way to achieve it. If you want more control over the earlier, lower level parts of the boot process, coreboot is the way to go, IMO. The convenient trick of UEFI/LinuxBoot is that you don't have to care about any mainboard specific things, if somebody else already ported UEFI for your board. And other than the name suggests, you can boot any other OS*, the Linux in LinuxBoot is just a fancy boot loader. Nico * Not sure about the status of Windows support, but it seems doable if you keep enough UEFI. -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
