Hello Patrick,
Do not want to reply to your (rather angry) arguments, I just can help a lot. I
am one at INTEL who constantly and steadily fights for what you said below,
but... INTEL business managers with numbers are far more important than I am.
Allow me freedom not to go to details.
Let me try to help. Three points:
[1] You writes: Yes, and Google's "best effort" only had to happen because
Intel isn't willing to support their customers' wishes.
Here I am, rather very voluntarily, listening to customer wishes, and
trying to push them through with INTEL structures.
[2] You writes: "locked IPS, sole property of INTEL" is probably not a very
appropriate slogan when interacting with an open source community.
Agree. I could not (!) explain to you what I did within INTEL Inside to
change that. So far, I am facing the same Iron Wall as you do.
[3] You write: Maybe you can figure out a schedule for when we can expect an
FSP binary that we can host in our 3rdparty repository under the same terms as
the current MRC binaries?
So far, I do not know exact date. I see that the schedule dates date
supposed to be released, and it will be certainly HSW FSP + Coreboot (from
INTEL public document).
I relentlesly expect that Sage upstreams IVB Coreboot changes to Coreboot Open
Source, and these to become to be part of everyday Coreboot generic x86
framework.
Stay tuned.
Best Regards,
Zoran
_______
Most of The Time you should be "intel inside" to be capable to think "out of
the box".
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Patrick Georgi
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 1:43 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [coreboot] Coreboot Haswell Support
Am 2013-09-17 09:36, schrieb Stojsavljevic, Zoran:
> I am not sure what is your scenario here. If you are attempting to
> bring HSW to grub, and then to Linux, Coreboot is not required, as far
> as you are using classical EFI BIOS or new UEFI BIOS (AMI, Phoenix,
> Insyde).
There's nothing said about GRUB or Linux in his mail - since he didn't go into
detail on what he's planning, for all we know his project might be
fundamentally incompatible with EFI, "Unified" or not.
Anyway, reasons why UEFI might not be suitable for users (no matter if GRUB or
not):
- The IBVs's track record in product quality is rather mixed (Samsung's UEFI
variable issue, for example. More examples: all the BIOS workarounds within
Linux)
- IBV's products aren't open source
- UEFI's footprint is at least five times that of a coreboot solution in terms
of lines of code (yes, I measured it)
- the previous two issues make any quality and/or security assessment of UEFI
solutions harder than of a coreboot solution
I didn't think that these types of arguments need any more mention on the
coreboot mailing list, but here we are...
> As my best understanding is, mrc.bin was released by Google in the
> best effort to support minimalistic approach (mrc.bin equivalent to
> x-loader) with Coreboot SNB (I guess, applies for IVB as well) support
> (Google did created mrc.bin with some internal INTEL group support).
Yes, and Google's "best effort" only had to happen because Intel isn't willing
to support their customers' wishes.
> All these are now called Firmware Support Packages (FSPs), and they
> have locked IPs, sole property of INTEL. Please, read the following,
> widely available on INTEL external web site:
"locked IPS, sole property of INTEL" is probably not a very appropriate slogan
when interacting with an open source community.
> http://www.intel.com/fsp
> http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/training/i
> ntel-firmware-support-package-technical-training.pdf
Since nothing but whitepapers is published on FSP yet, this can be safely
considered vaporware.
> I am not sure about HSW FSP roadmap, I think HSW FSP is officially not
> released yet.
Indeed.
Maybe you can figure out a schedule for when we can expect an FSP binary that
we can host in our 3rdparty repository under the same terms as the current MRC
binaries?
That is, if FSP ever gets released at all (even Duke Nukem Forever did
eventually happen, so let's hope)
Regards,
Patrick
--
coreboot mailing list: [email protected]
http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Intel GmbH
Dornacher Strasse 1
85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen, Deutschland
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Christian Lamprechter, Hannes Schwaderer, Douglas Lusk
Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456
Ust.-IdNr./VAT Registration No.: DE129385895
Citibank Frankfurt a.M. (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052
--
coreboot mailing list: [email protected]
http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
