Also, there may be users interested in the "whole" UEFI experience,
with secure boot validating binaries loaded from a https server via
their infiniband controllers and IPoIB implemented by on-PCIe firmware
delivered as EBC bytecode. I don't see yabits providing support for
that.


Patrick

Am Do., 14. Feb. 2019 um 23:05 Uhr schrieb Matt DeVillier
<matt.devillier@gmail.com>:
>
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 3:11 PM Nico Huber <nico.h@gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>> On 14.02.19 09:28, Patrick Rudolph wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2019-02-13 at 10:15 +0100, Nico Huber wrote:
>> >> 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.
>> >>
>> > There's yabits as payload integration in coreboot already.
>> >
>> > Yabits didn't receive updates in the last few month. Looking at the
>> > code base it's more a Proof-of-Concept.
>>
>> I fear it'll stay this way if everybody interested in UEFI runs after
>> Tianocore. Open-source development isn't about waiting for somebody
>> else to do the job. At least, it wasn't always.
>
>
> I think these are completely separate issues however: one being providing a
> working Tianocore implementation to users who need a payload with EFI
> boot support, and the other being the best place to focus development effort.
>
> I've gone ahead and created a new 'coreboot' branch based on my fbgop branch,
> with a little bit of cleanup. We can offer that as a working (or even default) option,
> and then figure out the best path forward. But it's pretty minimal effort to offer a
> better working default option
>
>>
>>
>> Nico
>> _______________________________________________
>> coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-leave@coreboot.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-leave@coreboot.org



--
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-leave@coreboot.org