Hi, 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. > A good candiate is [1], as it's maintained, has bug-fixes and features > upstream tianocore doesn't provide, and it's known to work with > coreboot out of the box. Agreed. We don't even have to switch the upstream repo btw. In git, it's as easy as `git fetch https://github.com/MrChromebox/edk2 fbgop` instead of the current "stable" reference. IIRC, we currently try to apply the local patches to any ref. As that's never supposed to work, we should only apply them if "stable" is selec- ted. Or get rid of the current "stable" altogether. Nico > > [1]: https://github.com/MrChromebox/edk2 > _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org
