<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Hey Chris,</p>
yes it does. The PI interface is in terms of encapsulation somewhat
cleaner then the FSP integration.<br>
I think that was Ron concern using PI instead of FSP.<br>
<br>
If we talking about full customization up to the bootblock and
vboot2 support<br>
I would recommend to use coreboot in combination with LinuxBoot
payload.<br>
<br>
If we talk less effort to get your firmware running maybe LinuxBoot
is the better approach depending<br>
on your platform.<br>
<br>
<br>
Best Regards, Philipp<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 27.06.2018 13:37,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:chrisglowaki@tutanota.com">chrisglowaki@tutanota.com</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:LG01Dt2--3-0@das-labor.org">
<pre wrap="">26. Jun 2018 20:02 by <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rminnich@gmail.com">rminnich@gmail.com</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:rminnich@gmail.com"><mailto:rminnich@gmail.com></a>:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">For a case like this, where your choice is between two binary blobs (FSP or UEFI) I would argue that linuxboot is a better way to go.
See > github.com/osresearch/heads <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://github.com/osresearch/heads"><http://github.com/osresearch/heads></a>> or > linuxboot.org <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://linuxboot.org"><http://linuxboot.org></a>> for more info.
ron
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Doesn't linuxbootalso require the FSP blob for memory and silicon initialization on any Intel board after Ivy Bridge?
Thanks
Chris
</pre>
<!--'"--><br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>