Hi, It seems the Tianocore Coreboot payload (CorebootPayloadPkg/CorebootModulePkg) will be replaced in future by UefiPayloadPkg... See also: https://firmwaresecurity.com/2018/09/14/uefipayloadpkg-uefi-payload-project-supports-coreboot-and-slim-bootloader/ The preliminary implementation is available in: https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-staging/tree/UEFIPayload
Kind regards, Sumo On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 8:09 PM Patrick Georgi via coreboot < coreboot@coreboot.org> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org
