[coreboot] Re: coreboot EFI working group meeting minutes - 12 October 2021
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 -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org
[coreboot] Re: coreboot EFI working group meeting minutes - 12 October 2021
Am Mi., 13. Okt. 2021 um 20:51 Uhr schrieb Peter Stuge : > > Linux is expecting more and more to use EFI supplied interfaces (UEFI > > Boot Services in particular, even if many are stubbed out) so like it or > > not, we’re going to need to support these interfaces. > > LOL! > The fun part about this segment was that all we could go by was hear-say and unfounded rumors that went around. I attended that meeting but from what I've heard there, no such expectation might actually exist, and it might just have been a weird game of telephone. This is super embarrassing for Linux and Linux Foundation, but of > course also 100% to be expected. Linux plods along towards absolute > uselessness. > 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. > * 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. OTOH I haven't found a better way to make developers fervent edk2 opponents than simply showing them the source, so there's that. > * 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. The vboot case arguably hurts coreboot a > lot less, but unfortunately all incentives are wrong for quality! > I'm not sure why vboot makes this sudden appearance here. I don't expect this to go at all well for coreboot, but fingers crossed! > Want peanuts? Patrick -- 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] Re: coreboot EFI working group meeting minutes - 12 October 2021
On 13.10.21 20:50, Peter Stuge wrote: > Martin Roth via coreboot wrote: >> ## Objective: >> >> Linux is expecting more and more to use EFI supplied interfaces (UEFI >> Boot Services in particular, even if many are stubbed out) so like it or >> not, we’re going to need to support these interfaces. > > LOL! > > This is super embarrassing for Linux and Linux Foundation, but of > course also 100% to be expected. Linux plods along towards absolute > uselessness. It's just not true. It reads a bit like propaganda, but I think it wasn't meant like that. Whoever made that up probably had a specific Linux binary distribution in mind or something like that. 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; rather the opposite: I'm often reminded that server folks run away from EFI, for instance. There are a few who might actually need it. For instance if one is in the business of general purpose PCs where any OS should work. 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. Nico ___ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org
[coreboot] Re: coreboot EFI working group meeting minutes - 12 October 2021
Martin Roth via coreboot wrote: > ## Objective: > > Linux is expecting more and more to use EFI supplied interfaces (UEFI > Boot Services in particular, even if many are stubbed out) so like it or > not, we’re going to need to support these interfaces. LOL! This is super embarrassing for Linux and Linux Foundation, but of course also 100% to be expected. Linux plods along towards absolute uselessness. > How do we approach this without turning coreboot into UEFI. I think it's mostly a waste of time to try to avoid that. When Linux Foundation dictates technical requirements to coreboot instead of the other way around then the question is not "if" but "when" coreboot becomes UEFI, given that LF groupthinks "firmware == UEFI". That was bad already in BIOS times, apparently things haven't gotten better. > ## Decisions: > > * 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. > * 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. The vboot case arguably hurts coreboot a lot less, but unfortunately all incentives are wrong for quality! I don't expect this to go at all well for coreboot, but fingers crossed! Kind regards //Peter ___ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org
