Patrick Georgi via coreboot wrote: > > > Linux is expecting more and more to use EFI supplied interfaces (UEFI > > > Boot Services in particular, even if many are stubbed out) > > > > LOL! > > The fun part about this segment was that all we could go by was hear-say > and unfounded rumors that went around.
Nico Huber wrote: > It's just not true. That's good news! Patrick Georgi via coreboot wrote: > Remember that LF is a trade organization (501(c)(6)), not a charitable > organization (501(c)(3)). > This difference in target audience compared to most open source > organizations informs their strategic decisions, and keeping that in mind > minimizes surprises and heartburn. Yes, exactly right. > > * The coreboot repo will host an EDK2 fork for use as a coreboot payload. > > I think the planned tighter integration is a significant first step > > towards coreboot becoming UEFI. > > This isn't about a "tighter" integration: we already have that payload, and > we had Tianocore-as-a-payload integration since 2013 (commit > cc5b3446624cf85e13a8130a524e81360c5f4239) > > It minimizes the time each individual, who for one reason or another works > on edk2, needs to spend on edk2. Ah, so, if it's mostly a matter of giving a coreboot.org home to what Matt has been maintaining outside of coreboot.org then I think it's a good decision! > OTOH I haven't found a better way to make developers fervent edk2 > opponents than simply showing them the source, so there's that. Thanks, that made me smile. :) > > * Definitely no one-size fits all solution here > > > > The challenge is great. The coreboot community must be strong and > > vigilant to not allow coreboot to get locked into EDK2/UEFI like has > > already happened with vboot. > > I'm not sure why vboot makes this sudden appearance here. It's supposed to be optional but actually (I believe still) isn't. The lock isn't very strong, which is why I argue that the damage is small. > > I don't expect this to go at all well for coreboot, but fingers crossed! > > Want peanuts? With cranberries, please. :) Nico Huber wrote: > If it were generally true, Chromebooks would have to implement UEFI, > all the mobile and embedded devices running Linux would have to > implement UEFI, and it would render LinuxBoot impossible. I don't see > that happening; I can imagine that some are pushing for it to happen though. > rather the opposite: I'm often reminded that server folks run away > from EFI, for instance. A good point! But are servers a more important market than mobile? I honestly don't know what that fight looks like. > There are a few who might actually need it. Also a good point. I think it's a good thing if it becomes easier to create UEFI using coreboot, less so if it becomes the primary use case. > For instance if one is in the business of general purpose PCs where > any OS should work. Exciting times for such business! > In this area one will always have to support legacy boot in one way > or the other (BIOS/UEFI). Maybe who wrote that is in this particular > business and "we" was referring to them and not the whole coreboot > community. Nod - I hope that's right. Thanks and kind regards //Peter _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
