Also, there may be users interested in the "whole" UEFI experience, with secure boot validating binaries loaded from a https server via their infiniband controllers and IPoIB implemented by on-PCIe firmware delivered as EBC bytecode. I don't see yabits providing support for that.
Patrick Am Do., 14. Feb. 2019 um 23:05 Uhr schrieb Matt DeVillier <matt.devill...@gmail.com>: > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 3:11 PM Nico Huber <nic...@gmx.de> wrote: >> >> On 14.02.19 09:28, Patrick Rudolph wrote: >> > On Wed, 2019-02-13 at 10:15 +0100, Nico Huber wrote: >> >> On 13.02.19 09:45, Patrick Rudolph wrote: >> >>> With UEFI the defactor standard it seems reasonable to improve the >> >>> tianocore payload integration. >> >> >> >> I agree that UEFI may seem ubiquitous (we've slept too long, never pro- >> >> vided an alternative), but why should we focus on tianocore? >> >> >> >> Tianocore isn't the only UEFI implementation. There is Yabits and, IIRC, >> >> somebody was working on a Boot-Services implementation for Linux (don't >> >> know the state of it, though). So why not put the effort into something >> >> that benefits our infrastructure more? Yabits uses libpayload, afaik. >> >> Would be nice to have more payloads upstream that use it. And if core- >> >> boot developers would put as much effort into Yabits as they put into >> >> merely getting tiano to compile, it would likely flourish much >> >> better. >> >> >> > There's yabits as payload integration in coreboot already. >> > >> > Yabits didn't receive updates in the last few month. Looking at the >> > code base it's more a Proof-of-Concept. >> >> I fear it'll stay this way if everybody interested in UEFI runs after >> Tianocore. Open-source development isn't about waiting for somebody >> else to do the job. At least, it wasn't always. > > > I think these are completely separate issues however: one being providing a > working Tianocore implementation to users who need a payload with EFI > boot support, and the other being the best place to focus development effort. > > I've gone ahead and created a new 'coreboot' branch based on my fbgop branch, > with a little bit of cleanup. We can offer that as a working (or even > default) option, > and then figure out the best path forward. But it's pretty minimal effort to > offer a > better working default option > >> >> >> Nico >> _______________________________________________ >> coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org > > _______________________________________________ > coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org > To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org -- Google Germany GmbH, ABC-Str. 19, 20354 Hamburg Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891, Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg Geschäftsführer: Paul Manicle, Halimah DeLaine Prado _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org