Hello Patrick, > A 32bit coreboot doesn't preclude providing a 64bit uefi interface (as is needed for windows), and that's all that matters when people talk about "64bit UEFI".
Agreed. In such a case I need just a super-tiny "Tiano_Core" payload which does the following: [1] Changes 32 bit protected mode to 64 bit mode; [2] To understand logical HDD/SSD disk partition, eg. to understand how to assist/make true FAT 32 /boot/EFI/ partition on the HDD/SSD/eMMC disk Do you have such one (you worked on something, I understood), but does it do what I spelled here? Thank you, Zoran _______ On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Patrick Georgi <[email protected]> wrote: > A 32bit coreboot doesn't preclude providing a 64bit uefi interface (as is > needed for windows), and that's all that matters when people talk about > "64bit UEFI". > > Zoran Stojsavljevic <[email protected]> schrieb am So., 14. > Feb. 2016 um 13:40 Uhr: > >> Hello Patrick, >> >> You see, sometimes ago, when Coreboot came to existence, they used to >> call it Linux BIOS. I actually like this term. Linux BIOS! >> >> Now, my aim is the following: to make Coreboot alternative for/to UEFI >> compliant BIOS. For this to happen, I need there several things: >> [1] I'll see if FSP itself can be 64 bit (for now, it is 32 bit, and I >> need to do some work there to see how it looks/is integrated as part of the >> real 64 bit UEFI BIOS); >> [2] Coreboot to be 64 bit; >> [3] To understand logical HDD/SSD disk partition, eg. to understand how >> to assist/make true FAT 32 /boot/EFI/ partition on the HDD/SSD/eMMC disk >> (minimalistic 64 bit Tiano Core which will do just this - Coreboot payload). >> >> And, yes, if this can help, we can make it 32 bit UEFI compliant, for the >> beginning... Then, the following is required: >> [1] To understand logical HDD/SSD disk partition, eg. to understand how >> to assist/make true FAT 32 /boot/EFI/ partition on the HDD/SSD/eMMC disk >> (minimalistic 32 bit Tiano Core which will do just this - Coreboot payload). >> >> We do NOT want this MBR and who_knows_where parts of OS boot-loader on >> the actual HDD (MBR + adjacent 31KB of the disk), this crap hanging still >> out/around, do we?! >> >> Make sense? ;-) >> >> Thank you, >> Zoran >> _______ >> >> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Patrick Georgi <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> 2016-02-14 8:32 GMT+01:00 Zoran Stojsavljevic < >>> [email protected]>: >>> > [1] FSP 32 bit as is; >>> That's probably best discussed with some Intel field rep for FSP. >>> >>> > [2] Coreboot to be 64 bit Coreboot, compiled for INTEL x86_64 >>> architecture; >>> The 64bit support was started, but I wouldn't expect it to work just >>> right yet. We don't even enable it by default anywhere, because it >>> isn't really needed. >>> Why do you want coreboot to be 64bit code? >>> >>> > [3] Have the minimum minimorum of Tiano Core (just UEFI HDD/SSD UEFI >>> boot >>> > partition maker, everything else scrapped)! >>> Tianocore is a bit of a sore spot. We have three different >>> implementations of a TianoCore payload, one by Scott Duplichan, >>> working on some AMD board, one by Intel, working on some Intel board >>> (and available in the TianoCore repository) and my copy that I >>> irregularly work on. >>> >>> I'd expect the bare minimum payload able to boot Windows still to take >>> 500-700kb compressed in flash. >>> >>> >>> Patrick >>> -- >>> Google Germany GmbH, ABC-Str. 19, 20354 Hamburg >>> Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891, Sitz der Gesellschaft: >>> Hamburg >>> Geschäftsführer: Matthew Scott Sucherman, Paul Terence Manicle >>> >> >>
-- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
