12:44 a.m.
Hi,
I wonder if we want to establish something like the "Designed for
Windows XP" or "Yes it runs with Netware" certificates? It would
certainly be a nice marketing aid for vendors, and at the same time it
would promote coreboot visibility.
If there is interest in such an idea, we will have to decide which
criteria have to be fulfilled to get such a certificate, and if the
certificate has an expiry date and/or is bound to a specific svn revision.
Off the top of my head, I can think of the following criteria:
- coreboot+SeaBIOS works well enough to boot $ENTERPRISE_LINUX,
$ENDUSER_LINUX and Windows 7 (Vista and XP as well?)
- Nvidia and ATI graphics drivers (both free and closed) work if booted
with a coreboot+SeaBIOS image?
- Frequency scaling and the various suspend methods work
- Soft poweroff works
- IRQ routing and all PCI/PCIe/AGP/whatever slots work
- Legacy ports (if present) work
- Fans work well enough (temperature-based scaling if present in the
"normal" BIOS)
- Source for a working coreboot image (including the Kconfig settings
for the board, and possibly NVRAM settings?) is available for free
without NDA
- Board port merged into coreboot svn
- SeaBIOS source code is available
- SeaBIOS code is merged into SeaBIOS git
- flashrom works on the board (no lockdown) or there is a way to boot
unlocked and run flashrom for your image of choice
- At least some serial output (coreboot version) if a serial port
(header) is present, otherwise... USB Debug? Floppy? LPC bus? POST card
on port 82h?
Did I forget something? Are some criteria useless? What would Jane User
expect from a normal mainboard if she didn't know coreboot was running?
Regards,
Carl-Daniel
--
http://www.hailfinger.org/
1:28 a.m.
I think that a base coreboot certification should basically state that
all the hardware on the board is usable with a major free OS (e.g.
Linux-based OSes like Debian, Ubuntu, and Redhat maybe).
We could maybe have extended certifications for things like non-free
OS and driver compatibility.
My comments below are what I would expect minimum coreboot compliance to mean.
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
<c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006(a)gmx.net> wrote:
I wonder if we want to establish something like the
"Designed for
Windows XP" or "Yes it runs with Netware" certificates? It would
certainly be a nice marketing aid for vendors, and at the same time it
would promote coreboot visibility.
Interesting idea. I think that we'd need participation from board
vendors for it to make much sense.
If there is interest in such an idea, we will have to
decide which
criteria have to be fulfilled to get such a certificate, and if the
certificate has an expiry date and/or is bound to a specific svn revision.
Off the top of my head, I can think of the following criteria:
- coreboot+SeaBIOS works well enough to boot $ENTERPRISE_LINUX,
$ENDUSER_LINUX and Windows 7 (Vista and XP as well?)
Why should Windows be important criteria? Should we really withhold a
coreboot certification on the condition that a non-free OS work?
- Nvidia and ATI graphics drivers (both free and
closed) work if booted
with a coreboot+SeaBIOS image?
Frankly, I think that ability to use the free drivers should be good
enough. We shouldn't be hold out any kind of coreboot certification on
the condition that non-free drivers work.
- Frequency scaling and the various suspend methods
work
yes
- Soft poweroff works
yes
- IRQ routing and all PCI/PCIe/AGP/whatever slots work
yes
- Legacy ports (if present) work
How about any ports on the board should work, legacy or not?
- Fans work well enough (temperature-based scaling if
present in the
"normal" BIOS)
I don't think that we should compare coreboot to the "normal" bios. We
should decide whether this feature is needed or not in a certified
system that is capable of it.
- Source for a working coreboot image (including the
Kconfig settings
for the board, and possibly NVRAM settings?) is available for free
without NDA
Yes.
- Board port merged into coreboot svn
Yes.
- SeaBIOS source code is available
Yes.
- SeaBIOS code is merged into SeaBIOS git
Yes. Doesn't this imply the previous item?
- flashrom works on the board (no lockdown) or there
is a way to boot
unlocked and run flashrom for your image of choice
Yes.
- At least some serial output (coreboot version) if a
serial port
(header) is present, otherwise... USB Debug? Floppy? LPC bus? POST card
on port 82h?
I thought that POST cards showed valued outputed on port 80h. What is 82h?
Basically every coreboot system should output POST codes that a POST
card can display if it's possible to insert a POST card.
Any physical ports (including headers for ports) on the board should
be supported.
Thanks,
wt
2:06 a.m.
On 03.10.2010 01:28, Warren Turkal wrote:
There are two aspects of the problem:
- We can't test everything (fact of life)
- Closed-source drivers have a huge market share, and won't go away any
time soon
Absolutely. I just wanted to point out that many vendors don't care that
much about legacy anymore.
Fans can be loud. If all fans run at 100% non-stop, machines can be
essentially unusable for noise reasons.
Indeed, but given that vendor code may not always be suitable for
merging, do we want to withhold certification if code is available but
not merged? And what happens if Kevin is on vacation?
Some POST cards support port 80h/82h/84h and you can decide which port
they should listen to. Some multi-functional POST cards support
reprogramming in a way that allows you to send text output to port
82h/84h and normal POST codes to port 80h.
I think that a base coreboot certification should
basically state that
all the hardware on the board is usable with a major free OS (e.g.
Linux-based OSes like Debian, Ubuntu, and Redhat maybe).
We could maybe have extended certifications for things like non-free
OS and driver compatibility.
Well, if we only care about Linux, you can avoid most (if not all) of
ACPI on many machines, and you can avoid SeaBIOS as well. Heck, you
could even avoid FILO and require a Linux kernel in flash. Whether such
ab board would be usable for end users is a totally different question.
IMHO being able to install a Linux distribution from CD is an absolute
must even if you only target professional users in clusters etc.
Windows support means a board is usable by the general population, and
this is something vendors care about deeply. We renamed LinuxBIOS to
coreboot exactly because people said all the time "I don't want Linux",
and EFI marketing would love to make fun of us if we ever said "Linux
only is good enough for certification".
My comments below are what I would expect minimum
coreboot compliance to mean.
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
<c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006(a)gmx.net> wrote:
Please see above.
If there is interest in such an idea, we will
have to decide which
criteria have to be fulfilled to get such a certificate, and if the
certificate has an expiry date and/or is bound to a specific svn revision.
Off the top of my head, I can think of the following criteria:
- coreboot+SeaBIOS works well enough to boot $ENTERPRISE_LINUX,
$ENDUSER_LINUX and Windows 7 (Vista and XP as well?)
Why should Windows be important criteria? Should we really withhold a
coreboot certification on the condition that a non-free OS work?
- Nvidia and
ATI graphics drivers (both free and closed) work if booted
with a coreboot+SeaBIOS image?
Frankly, I think that ability to use the free drivers should be good
enough. We shouldn't be hold out any kind of coreboot certification on
the condition that non-free drivers work.
- Legacy ports
(if present) work
How about any ports on the board should work, legacy or not?
- Fans work
well enough (temperature-based scaling if present in the
"normal" BIOS)
I don't think that we should compare coreboot to the "normal" bios. We
should decide whether this feature is needed or not in a certified
system that is capable of it.
- SeaBIOS
source code is available
Yes.
- SeaBIOS code is merged into SeaBIOS git
Yes. Doesn't this imply the previous item?
- At least
some serial output (coreboot version) if a serial port
(header) is present, otherwise... USB Debug? Floppy? LPC bus? POST card
on port 82h?
I thought that POST cards showed valued outputed on port 80h. What is 82h?
Basically every coreboot system should output POST
codes that a POST
card can display if it's possible to insert a POST card.
Any physical ports (including headers for ports) on the board should
be supported.
Yes.
Regards,
Carl-Daniel
--
http://www.hailfinger.org/
11:15 a.m.
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
<c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006(a)gmx.net> wrote:
Agreed. I also think that some developers won't be able to test
certain non-free software. For instance, I wouldn't be able to test
that Windows 7 boots. I also don't have an Nvidia card to test their
drivers.
Given the fact that we can't test everything, we should make a minimal
amount of compliance only include things that can be tested by most
folks. I think that minimally certified hardware should really be
capable enough to develop Coreboot further on the hardware
conveniently. Standard certified hardware should work well for free
OSes if the OSes have appropriate driver support.
Also, minimally certified hardware can support more features. For
example, a minimally certified board could have logic for adjusting
fan speed intelligently. It would still be minimally certified until
someone developed the rest of the functionality for the standard level
certification and tested it.
*snip*
On 03.10.2010 01:28, Warren Turkal wrote:
Booting into a certain OS is clearly not the only bar that we should
be looking for. It would need to comply with various standards like
ACPI, etc.
I think that a base coreboot certification should
basically state that
all the hardware on the board is usable with a major free OS (e.g.
Linux-based OSes like Debian, Ubuntu, and Redhat maybe).
We could maybe have extended certifications for things like non-free
OS and driver compatibility.
Well, if we only care about Linux, you can avoid most (if not all) of
ACPI on many machines, and you can avoid SeaBIOS as well. Heck, you
could even avoid FILO and require a Linux kernel in flash. Whether such
ab board would be usable for end users is a totally different question. IMHO being able to install a Linux distribution from
CD is an absolute
must even if you only target professional users in clusters etc.
I agree.
Windows support means a board is usable by the general
population, and
this is something vendors care about deeply.
Out of curiosity, are there actually non-niche vendors that ship
Coreboot as their system firmware?
We renamed LinuxBIOS to
coreboot exactly because people said all the time "I don't want Linux",
and EFI marketing would love to make fun of us if we ever said "Linux
only is good enough for certification".
I believe that most of the folks who care enough to use Coreboot at
this time are probably running Linux or some other free OS. I also
believe that most developers who have access to systems are probably
running on or have easy access to some free OS. I also know that
non-free OSes are not easily available to everyone. It's not that I
believe that we can't test for non-free software support. It's just
that I believe that certifying the boards for Coreboot should not gate
on that having been done.
Ideally, having some OS independent test suite would be the best
approach I think, but I don't see that getting developed overnight. :)
Maybe we should have multiple compliance levels like "Coreboot
minimal" and "Coreboot standard"? The minimal could be some set of
requirements. The standard could be the minimal requirements plus some
extra set of requirements. We could also have tags for the compliance.
These could be used to indicate special support like Windows or
something like that.
Think of "Coreboot minimal" as enough to conveniently develop coreboot
further without expensive and specialized hardware. Its requirement
might look like the following:
* Full initialization of the cpu and supporting chipset
- Intialized RAM
- Cooling systems should work enough to protect the system from
burning itself up
* At least one of the following:
- Outputs reasonable POST codes to a POST card if one can be plugged in
- USB debug ports enabled, if available on the board
- RS232 port enabled, if available on board
- Some other agreed method for debugging the system during Coreboot
execution (e.g. debug LEDs on mobo, etc.)
* At least one of the following
- At least one usb hub usable for keyboard, if one exists
- PS/2 port usable for keyboard, if one exists
* All expansion slots initialized and usable
* ACPI
- DSDT should exist
* Able to load VGA option ROM
* Able to boot into an OS not stored as a coreboot payload (e.g. boot
from CD, USB, or SATA drive). For the minimal certfication, I believe
that OS should be Debian since it's a well supported environment for
developing coreboot.
Think of "Coreboot Standard" as basically fully tested with free OSes.
Its requirements might look like the following:
* all requirements of the minimal certification
* Any requirement of the minimal certification that allows a subset to
be implemented should implement all the sub-items. For example, both
rs232 and usb debug ports should be enabled if they exists on the same
board instead of implementing one or the other.
* Uses tiny bootblock
* Uses cache-as-ram if the system is capable
* Soft poweroff works
* Extended initialization of supporting chipset
- Fan uses vary speed based on temperature of CPU
* All legacy io ports (i.e. rs232, parallel, etc.) usable
* All USB ports usable
* All other external (including header) ports usable (e.g. firewire,
sound, etc.)
* better ACPI support
- OSPM (e.g. G, S, D, and C states, etc.) fully exposed and usable
* CPU frequency scaling works
* After booting into Debian Linux, the OS should be able to rely on
any info provided by the Coreboot and any intervening payloads should
allow the system to be fully enumerated and configured as much as the
hardware will allow.
Tags could be used to identify specific extended support. For
instance, a system certified to boot Windows 7 could be "Coreboot
minimal+MSWin7" certified or "Coreboot standard+MSWin7" certified or
something like that. If anyone wanted to display the certification,
they could display it with or without the tags.
Possible tags:
MSWin{XP,7}
ReactOS
GPXE
AOE
ISCSI
...
We should probably note the known revisions that are compliant for
each board. This doesn't mean that every revision that would pass the
requirements needs to be listed. Only tested versions should be
listed. Those revisions would be the recommended revisions with users
using other revisions at their own risk. I could imagine something
like the following for a mobo:
minimal: 11 99 103 150
standard: 50 75 135 155
minimal+Win7: 77
The numbers are the Coreboot svn revisions that are tested. These
revisions should probably be listed in the wiki somewhere. There is
probably some better way to visualize the data. We may also need to
list SeaBIOS hashes for the certified builds.
*snip*
Frankly, I
think that ability to use the free drivers should be good
enough. We shouldn't be hold out any kind of coreboot certification on
the condition that non-free drivers work.
There are two aspects of the problem:
- We can't test everything (fact of life)
- Closed-source drivers have a huge market share, and won't go away any
time soon Fans can be loud. If all fans run at 100% non-stop,
machines can be
essentially unusable for noise reasons.
While I agree with this, I think that a minimally certified piece of
hardware should not need working fan logic.
*snip*
Indeed, but given that vendor code may not always be
suitable for
merging, do we want to withhold certification if code is available but
not merged? And what happens if Kevin is on vacation?
If the code's not merged into SeaBIOS, we shouldn't certify the build.
If Kevin is the only person that can merge push the canonical SeaBIOS
tree, then I suppose it would need to wait on him. It's the same way
that a vendor can't really claim that their hardware with compliant
with Microsoft's certifications until MS signs off.
If it really becomes a problem that vendors want the certification
during a time when Kevin isn't around, that would be a good problem
for the project to have. :)
*snip*
Comments would be appreciated, especially on the minimal and standard
certification requirements above. Also, please take a look at the tags
and see if you can think of any additions.
Thanks,
wt
7:58 p.m.
Hi!
I consider myself as enthusiast and would like to share my thoughts about
coreboot certification and PR as a person from outside the coreboot project. I
hope this will help you to see this project from another perspective and
therefore helpful for your plans and further actions. Let me say I would
really appreciate it, if vendors would ship their products preloaded with
coreboot. ;-)
On Sunday 03 October 2010, Warren Turkal wrote:
To make coreboot popular, it needs (a) a feature people want, (b) major
vendors to deliver it and (c) available documentation for all components to
make it work with most boards. These requirements are interdependent and must
be solved as whole. To get c vendors must be convinced to want b and therefore
coreboot needs a. So what's a? It surely is fast boot up, but depending on
what your target audience is, it might also be boot non-free OSes and works
with proprietary drivers. If you want to make vendors want b it's definitly
required to target the average user.
There is the possibility to depent on the vendors and the community. Vendors
could test if non-free OSes work with coreboot (they test this anyway with
their own BIOSes) and the community could assure this as well. That would
require a place (e.g. the wiki) were the status of each board is tracked and
an easy way to contribute. A Login would be required to keep the data on a
sane level.
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Carl-Daniel
Hailfinger
<c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006(a)gmx.net> wrote:
At first it would be helpful to define what you would like to achieve by
introducing a coreboot certificate. Helping developers to find boards, which
have basic support (as described earlier) for easy further development or
helping users/customers to find boards which are coreboot compatible?
On 03.10.2010 01:28, Warren Turkal wrote:
Booting into a certain OS is clearly not the only bar that we should
be looking for. It would need to comply with various standards like
ACPI, etc. I think that a base coreboot certification should
basically state that
all the hardware on the board is usable with a major free OS (e.g.
Linux-based OSes like Debian, Ubuntu, and Redhat maybe).
We could maybe have extended certifications for things like non-free
OS and driver compatibility.
Well, if we only care about Linux, you can avoid most (if not all) of
ACPI on many machines, and you can avoid SeaBIOS as well. Heck, you
could even avoid FILO and require a Linux kernel in flash. Whether such
ab board would be usable for end users is a totally different question. IMHO being
able to install a Linux distribution from CD is an absolute
must even if you only target professional users in clusters etc.
I agree.
Windows support means a board is usable by the
general population, and
this is something vendors care about deeply.
Out of curiosity, are there actually non-niche vendors that ship
Coreboot as their system firmware? We renamed
LinuxBIOS to
coreboot exactly because people said all the time "I don't want Linux",
and EFI marketing would love to make fun of us if we ever said "Linux
only is good enough for certification".
I believe that most of the folks who care enough to use Coreboot at
this time are probably running Linux or some other free OS. I also
believe that most developers who have access to systems are probably
running on or have easy access to some free OS. I also know that
non-free OSes are not easily available to everyone. It's not that I
believe that we can't test for non-free software support. It's just
that I believe that certifying the boards for Coreboot should not gate
on that having been done. Ideally, having some OS independent test suite would
be the best
approach I think, but I don't see that getting developed overnight. :)
That's automation. Automation is the second step. ;-)
Maybe we should have multiple compliance levels like
"Coreboot
minimal" and "Coreboot standard"? The minimal could be some set of
requirements. The standard could be the minimal requirements plus some
extra set of requirements. We could also have tags for the compliance.
These could be used to indicate special support like Windows or
something like that.
If you think of a little certification logo/mark that vendors print on their
boxes, then it has to be as simple and clear as possible.
Think of "Coreboot minimal" as enough to
conveniently develop coreboot
further without expensive and specialized hardware. Its requirement
might look like the following:
* Full initialization of the cpu and supporting chipset
- Intialized RAM
- Cooling systems should work enough to protect the system from
burning itself up
* At least one of the following:
- Outputs reasonable POST codes to a POST card if one can be plugged in
- USB debug ports enabled, if available on the board
- RS232 port enabled, if available on board
- Some other agreed method for debugging the system during Coreboot
execution (e.g. debug LEDs on mobo, etc.)
* At least one of the following
- At least one usb hub usable for keyboard, if one exists
- PS/2 port usable for keyboard, if one exists
* All expansion slots initialized and usable
* ACPI
- DSDT should exist
* Able to load VGA option ROM
* Able to boot into an OS not stored as a coreboot payload (e.g. boot
from CD, USB, or SATA drive). For the minimal certfication, I believe
that OS should be Debian since it's a well supported environment for
developing coreboot.
What about calling it "Coreboot: Developer's Choice". Also freely available
documentation would be a nice core requirement for that.
Think of "Coreboot Standard" as basically
fully tested with free OSes.
Its requirements might look like the following:
* all requirements of the minimal certification
* Any requirement of the minimal certification that allows a subset to
be implemented should implement all the sub-items. For example, both
rs232 and usb debug ports should be enabled if they exists on the same
board instead of implementing one or the other.
* Uses tiny bootblock
* Uses cache-as-ram if the system is capable
* Soft poweroff works
* Extended initialization of supporting chipset
- Fan uses vary speed based on temperature of CPU
* All legacy io ports (i.e. rs232, parallel, etc.) usable
* All USB ports usable
* All other external (including header) ports usable (e.g. firewire,
sound, etc.)
* better ACPI support
- OSPM (e.g. G, S, D, and C states, etc.) fully exposed and usable
* CPU frequency scaling works
* After booting into Debian Linux, the OS should be able to rely on
any info provided by the Coreboot and any intervening payloads should
allow the system to be fully enumerated and configured as much as the
hardware will allow.
This would target the normal user, so I would call it "Coreboot compatible" or
"Coreboot approved". This mark should assure that all parts of the board work,
meaning every feature, expected by the average user, hhis is important to
please them. So that this mark actually means something to them. If they have
a good reason to care about it, also the vendors have one, and this would give
the coreboot project the authority dictate such high standards.
Things normal users care about to work:
- All build-in components (net, snd, gfx)
- All ports/expansion slots (exceptions: rs232, parallel, floppy)
- Everything related to power management as supported by the underlying
hardware and drivers (All power states, ACPI). Also needed to improve drivers.
- Add-on components most importantly Nvidia/ATI cards
- The OS of choice (BSD, Linux, Windows)
- fast booting
Things normal users don't care about:
- most legacy stuff like rs232, parallel, floppy
- pro features like *PXE, AoE, iSCSI (Those could be combined under a logo
like "Coreboot for Professionals")
- OSes besides the ones they use
Tags could be used to identify specific extended
support. For
instance, a system certified to boot Windows 7 could be "Coreboot
minimal+MSWin7" certified or "Coreboot standard+MSWin7" certified or
something like that. If anyone wanted to display the certification,
they could display it with or without the tags.
Possible tags:
MSWin{XP,7}
ReactOS
GPXE
AOE
ISCSI
...
For OSes, users will expect that the major ones (BSD, Linux, Windows) will
work flawlessy if labeled "Coreboot compatible". So if you focus on the average
user, this should be respected. Listing the other features separately is a
good idea, as normal users mostly won't care about them, but experienced users
get the chance to check for them. To keep the logo itself simple, the feature
list should be separated from the logo e.g. printed on the backside of a
package. Or as mentioned above combined to another logo like "Coreboot for
Professionals"
We should probably note the known revisions that are
compliant for
each board. This doesn't mean that every revision that would pass the
requirements needs to be listed. Only tested versions should be
listed. Those revisions would be the recommended revisions with users
using other revisions at their own risk. I could imagine something
like the following for a mobo:
minimal: 11 99 103 150
standard: 50 75 135 155
minimal+Win7: 77
The numbers are the Coreboot svn revisions that are tested. These
revisions should probably be listed in the wiki somewhere. There is
probably some better way to visualize the data. We may also need to
list SeaBIOS hashes for the certified builds.
Keeping track of detailed information in the wiki is a good thing. If vendors
decide to deliver coreboot it should be as easy as possible for them.
*snip*
Agreed. I also think that some developers won't be able to test
certain non-free software. For instance, I wouldn't be able to test
that Windows 7 boots. I also don't have an Nvidia card to test their
drivers.
That's were vendors and community could help out. See above.
Frankly,
I think that ability to use the free drivers should be good
enough. We shouldn't be hold out any kind of coreboot certification on
the condition that non-free drivers work.
There are two aspects of the problem:
- We can't test everything (fact of life)
- Closed-source drivers have a huge market share, and won't go away any
time soon Given the fact that we can't test everything, we
should make a minimal
amount of compliance only include things that can be tested by most
folks. I think that minimally certified hardware should really be
capable enough to develop Coreboot further on the hardware
conveniently. Standard certified hardware should work well for free
OSes if the OSes have appropriate driver support.
That's why I would go for "Coreboot: Developer's Choice" and
"Coreboot
compatible" (or "Coreboot powered" for actual boards preloaded with
coreboot),
it makes it much clearer in my opinion. If there's one think you don't won't a
certification mark to do, then it's confusing people more than helping them.
Also, minimally certified hardware can support more
features. For
example, a minimally certified board could have logic for adjusting
fan speed intelligently. It would still be minimally certified until
someone developed the rest of the functionality for the standard level
certification and tested it.
Agreed.
*snip*
True, developers should be able to deal with it, but for users it's a must
have feature.
Fans can be loud. If all fans run at 100%
non-stop, machines can be
essentially unusable for noise reasons.
While I agree with this, I think that a minimally certified piece of
hardware should not need working fan logic. *snip*
True, but to respect vendors and how they work (e.g. deadlines etc.), it would
be clever to keep up a communication channel to announce e.g. "no certification
from X to Y (due to $REASON)". This allows vendors to plan. The point being
always try to work with, never against each other. ;-)
Indeed, but given that vendor code may not always
be suitable for
merging, do we want to withhold certification if code is available but
not merged? And what happens if Kevin is on vacation?
If the code's not merged into SeaBIOS, we shouldn't certify the build.
If Kevin is the only person that can merge push the canonical SeaBIOS
tree, then I suppose it would need to wait on him. It's the same way
that a vendor can't really claim that their hardware with compliant
with Microsoft's certifications until MS signs off. If it really becomes a problem that vendors want the
certification
during a time when Kevin isn't around, that would be a good problem
for the project to have. :)
Yes that's somehow true, but to some extend this could also be considered
mismanagement. To prevent those situations each vendor would have to have (at
least) one employee to stay in contact with coreboot project, which would have
to ask for one. Also interproject communication (e.g. between flashrom,
coreboot and seabios) is vital. I can't tell how this works atm., I assume
quite good, but what I'm trying to point out is, that vendors (and users) are
always looking for a complete package to solve their problems. Therefore I
consider the free boot up infrastructure, meaning flashrom, coreboot and
seabios, as a whole package. This makes working hand in hand very important.
*snip*
Comments would be appreciated, especially on the minimal and standard
certification requirements above. Also, please take a look at the tags
and see if you can think of any additions.
Thanks,
wt
Please keep in mind that I'm neither involved in the coreboot project or any
related projects nor do I work for a hardware vendor. I simply try to express
how I see the whole picture with the hope this could be of any help for your
project.
Thanks,
phorsyon
2:11 a.m.
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 10:58 AM, phorsyon <phorsyon(a)gmx.net> wrote:
Indeed. For the record, I believe that Linux probably has a mature
enough ACPI stack and other systems to be pretty good barometer of
compliance short of having an independent test suite.
*snip*
Frankly, I don't think that we are aiming for average users at this
time. We are aiming for the developers that can advocate coreboot's
use in OEM hardware or folks who see enough of an advantage to pay for
a port to their hardware. These are very sophisticated users.
*snip*
That's why I included that as part of the standard certification.
*snip*
I don't think it's mismanagement unless we think that Kevin is away
enough to warrant adding others who can take this responsibility. If
that happens, it's a good problem to have, and I am sure we can modify
exactly what our definition of code state is to allow a certification.
If we start off with a more conservative definition and expand it in
the future, I think that'd be okay.
*snip*
I consider myself as enthusiast and would like to
share my thoughts about
coreboot certification and PR as a person from outside the coreboot project. I
hope this will help you to see this project from another perspective and
therefore helpful for your plans and further actions. Let me say I would
really appreciate it, if vendors would ship their products preloaded with
coreboot. ;-)
We are not vendors, and AFAIK no hardware OEM vendors ship with
coreboot pre-loaded.
On Sunday 03 October 2010, Warren Turkal wrote:
*snip*
At first it would be helpful to define what you would
like to achieve by
introducing a coreboot certificate. Helping developers to find boards, which
have basic support (as described earlier) for easy further development or
helping users/customers to find boards which are coreboot compatible?
I believe that is what this process is trying to do.
*snip*
To make coreboot popular, it needs (a) a feature
people want, (b) major
vendors to deliver it and (c) available documentation for all components to
make it work with most boards. These requirements are interdependent and must
be solved as whole. To get c vendors must be convinced to want b and therefore
coreboot needs a. So what's a? It surely is fast boot up, but depending on
what your target audience is, it might also be boot non-free OSes and works
with proprietary drivers. If you want to make vendors want b it's definitly
required to target the average user.
I do not believe that (c) is strictly required in that you don't need
detailed bios developer guides once the code is available. It would be
useful, but I don't see it as being required.
We also need to be realistic. OEMs are not taking up coreboot in mass
right now. We need to set the certification bar at the point that it
would be useful for the coreboot project. I believe that setting the
certification bar allow a more rapid development of coreboot code
would be much more productive that pie-in-the-sky arguments about what
to do with all the OEMs that want to ship coreboot.
*snip*
There is the possibility to depent on the vendors and
the community. Vendors
could test if non-free OSes work with coreboot (they test this anyway with
their own BIOSes) and the community could assure this as well. That would
require a place (e.g. the wiki) were the status of each board is tracked and
an easy way to contribute. A Login would be required to keep the data on a
sane level.
Vendors do not ship coreboot yet. I believe that we only have the
community at this point. Given that fact, we need to do what we can to
get vendors interested. I believe that maturing the coreboot codebase
is probably the most effective way to do that.
Ideally,
having some OS independent test suite would be the best
approach I think, but I don't see that getting developed overnight. :)
That's automation. Automation is the second step. ;-) If you think of a little certification logo/mark that
vendors print on their
boxes, then it has to be as simple and clear as possible.
Agreed.
*snip description of coreboot minimal certification level*
What about calling it "Coreboot: Developer's
Choice". Also freely available
documentation would be a nice core requirement for that.
I actually don't like "minimal." However, I also don't like
"Coreboot:
Developer's Choice." What would you think about "Coreboot beta test"?
*snip description of coreboot standard certification level*
This would target the normal user, so I would call it
"Coreboot compatible" or
"Coreboot approved".
"Coreboot compatible" is probably a better choice. I like that better
than "standard."
This mark should assure that all parts of the board
work,
meaning every feature, expected by the average user, hhis is important to
please them. So that this mark actually means something to them. If they have
a good reason to care about it, also the vendors have one, and this would give
the coreboot project the authority dictate such high standards.
Things normal users care about to work:
- All build-in components (net, snd, gfx)
I should have explicitly included this in the standard certification level.
- All ports/expansion slots (exceptions: rs232,
parallel, floppy)
Already said this in the standard certification level except that I
didn't make any exceptions. It's sloppy to leave physical and header
ports not working.
- Everything related to power management as supported
by the underlying
hardware and drivers (All power states, ACPI). Also needed to improve drivers.
For the record, I included this in the "better ACPI support" section
of the standard certification. The OSPM part of ACPI includes all
power states of all parts of the system.
- Add-on components most importantly Nvidia/ATI cards
I don't believe that we should bias toward some particular class of
add-on card or some vendor of add-on card.
- The OS of choice (BSD, Linux, Windows)
While I agree with this sentiment, we can't test everything. I think
that we should agree on a standard test OS. That OS needs to be freely
obtainable to make the testing bar very low.
- fast booting
I think this might be a little too subjective for certification. What
if a server vendor wanted to ship coreboot firmware that does a
longish running operation everytime before booting. Would that never
qualify for a coreboot certification?
Things normal users don't care about:
- most legacy stuff like rs232, parallel, floppy
As stated above, I think that leaving ports with physical or header
connections nonfunctional is just sloppy, and it would not reflect
well on the project to allow board in that state to get a standard
certification.
- pro features like *PXE, AoE, iSCSI (Those could be
combined under a logo
like "Coreboot for Professionals")
I agree about things like PXE, AoE, and iSCSI being more important to
big iron. I'm not sure that we should have another certification level
to support them right out of the gate, however. More certification
levels is more confusing.
- OSes besides the ones they use
Of course.
Tags could be
used to identify specific extended support. For
instance, a system certified to boot Windows 7 could be "Coreboot
minimal+MSWin7" certified or "Coreboot standard+MSWin7" certified or
something like that. If anyone wanted to display the certification,
they could display it with or without the tags.
Possible tags:
MSWin{XP,7}
ReactOS
GPXE
AOE
ISCSI
...
For OSes, users will expect that the major ones (BSD, Linux, Windows) will
work flawlessy if labeled "Coreboot compatible". So if you focus on the
average
user, this should be respected. Listing the other features separately is a
good idea, as normal users mostly won't care about them, but experienced users
get the chance to check for them. To keep the logo itself simple, the feature
list should be separated from the logo e.g. printed on the backside of a
package. Or as mentioned above combined to another logo like "Coreboot for
Professionals" Keeping track of detailed information in the wiki is a
good thing. If vendors
decide to deliver coreboot it should be as easy as possible for them.
I am not sure this data is simple enough for wiki. However, I haven't
given this too much thought.
That's were vendors and community could help out.
See above.
We don't have vendors shipping coreboot that I am aware of. From a
look at http://www.coreboot.org/Products, the closest we have is VIA,
and they aren't shipping coreboot on any systems that I know of.
*snip*
That's why I would go for "Coreboot:
Developer's Choice" and "Coreboot
compatible" (or "Coreboot powered" for actual boards preloaded with
coreboot),
it makes it much clearer in my opinion. If there's one think you don't won't
a
certification mark to do, then it's confusing people more than helping them.
I agree that clarity is of the utmost importance. I also think that
"Coreboot: Developer's Choice
*snip*
While I agree
with this, I think that a minimally certified piece of
hardware should not need working fan logic.
True, developers should be able to deal with it, but for users it's a must
have feature. True, but to respect vendors and how they work (e.g.
deadlines etc.), it would
be clever to keep up a communication channel to announce e.g. "no certification
from X to Y (due to $REASON)". This allows vendors to plan. The point being
always try to work with, never against each other. ;-)
I think this is somewhat moot since we don't have vendors at this
point, but, of course, I believe that we should make this work with
vendors when they are ready.
If it really
becomes a problem that vendors want the certification
during a time when Kevin isn't around, that would be a good problem
for the project to have. :)
Yes that's somehow true, but to some extend this could also be considered
mismanagement. To prevent those situations each vendor would have to have (at
least) one employee to stay in contact with coreboot project, which would have
to ask for one. Also interproject communication (e.g. between flashrom,
coreboot and seabios) is vital. I can't tell how this works atm., I assume
quite good, but what I'm trying to point out is, that vendors (and users) are
always looking for a complete package to solve their problems. Therefore I
consider the free boot up infrastructure, meaning flashrom, coreboot and
seabios, as a whole package. This makes working hand in hand very important. Please keep in mind that I'm neither involved in
the coreboot project or any
related projects nor do I work for a hardware vendor. I simply try to express
how I see the whole picture with the hope this could be of any help for your
project.
I definitely appreciate your PoV. I think we'll need a lot of
perspective to do something like this successfully.
Thanks,
wt
3:22 a.m.
On 04.10.2010 02:11, Warren Turkal wrote:
OEMs want fire-and-forget solutions without functional regressions.
coreboot can serve as fire-and-forget solution, but if we certify
consumer mainboards which can't run Windows, the certificate will be
essentially worthless.
Remember the complaints about "Designed for Windows Vista" and the
machines which were too slow to be useful? People still remember that
marketing disaster years after it happened. If we ever certify some
hardware without caring about Windows, we should make that explicit, and
call it a feature. "Coreboot certified board for the anti-closed-source
movement, will refuse to run Windows". The variant which can run Windows
would be "Coreboot certified board". Except for niche vendors, nobody
will care about the anti-closed-source certification, making it moot.
For me, "Developer's choice" implies that the board already works
perfectly fine, and has all the hardware features which make it easy to
test new coreboot versions.
I believe in honest advertising, and if the machine barely works, we
should not certify it, but we could list it as "fun project if you want
to finish a port".
Nobody is going to test with Tseng Labs graphics cards because they are
no longer on sale (actually, they haven't been on sale anytime in the
last 12 years).
Nobody is going to test with Intel graphics cards either unless you can
actually show that such cards are on sale for mere mortals.
So basically you have ATI(AMD) and Nvidia for external graphics, and
maybe Matrox in niche markets.
Intel and S3 and others are only available as onboard options.
So FreeDOS would be OK for you? Small, free, and it will probably run
just fine even if major parts of the board are malfunctioning because
the port is unfinished.
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 10:58 AM, phorsyon
<phorsyon(a)gmx.net> wrote:
I think a few vendors ship some systems with coreboot if you ask nicely,
but they are either in the server or embedded space, not general
consumer space.
I consider myself as enthusiast and would like to
share my thoughts about
coreboot certification and PR as a person from outside the coreboot project. I
hope this will help you to see this project from another perspective and
therefore helpful for your plans and further actions. Let me say I would
really appreciate it, if vendors would ship their products preloaded with
coreboot. ;-)
We are not vendors, and AFAIK no hardware OEM vendors ship with
coreboot pre-loaded.
To make
coreboot popular, it needs (a) a feature people want, (b) major
vendors to deliver it and (c) available documentation for all components to
make it work with most boards. These requirements are interdependent and must
be solved as whole. To get c vendors must be convinced to want b and therefore
coreboot needs a. So what's a? It surely is fast boot up, but depending on
what your target audience is, it might also be boot non-free OSes and works
with proprietary drivers. If you want to make vendors want b it's definitly
required to target the average user.
I do not believe that (c) is strictly required in that you don't need
detailed bios developer guides once the code is available. It would be
useful, but I don't see it as being required.
We also need to be realistic. OEMs are not taking up coreboot in mass
right now. We need to set the certification bar at the point that it
would be useful for the coreboot project. I believe that setting the
certification bar allow a more rapid development of coreboot code
would be much more productive that pie-in-the-sky arguments about what
to do with all the OEMs that want to ship coreboot.
Vendors do not ship coreboot yet.
AFAIK Artec, Tyan, Technexion, MSI and some other vendors ship coreboot
for specific systems on request. Not sure about the current state, but
AFAIK they did that in the past.
I believe that we only have the
community at this point. Given that fact, we need to do what we can to
get vendors interested. I believe that maturing the coreboot codebase
is probably the most effective way to do that.
Booting Windows 7 on recent consumer boards is probably the best way to
show vendors that coreboot is a viable BIOS replacement. This needs
porting work, and of course it needs testing.
For the record, I believe that Linux probably has a
mature
enough ACPI stack and other systems to be pretty good barometer of
compliance short of having an independent test suite.
Ummm... Linux will tolerate absolutely crappy ACPI code, and not even
complain loudly if it has to fix stuff. Given the current market share
of Linux, there is no money in verifying ACPI code under Linux for any
consumer mainboard.
What about
calling it "Coreboot: Developer's Choice". Also freely available
documentation would be a nice core requirement for that.
I actually don't like "minimal." However, I also don't like
"Coreboot:
Developer's Choice." What would you think about "Coreboot beta test"?
- Add-on
components most importantly Nvidia/ATI cards
I don't believe that we should bias toward some particular class of
add-on card or some vendor of add-on card.
- The OS of
choice (BSD, Linux, Windows)
While I agree with this sentiment, we can't test everything. I think
that we should agree on a standard test OS. That OS needs to be freely
obtainable to make the testing bar very low.
Frankly, I don't think that we are aiming for
average users at this
time. We are aiming for the developers that can advocate coreboot's
use in OEM hardware or folks who see enough of an advantage to pay for
a port to their hardware. These are very sophisticated users.
But OEMs won't care unless we can make average users happy. If you want
an OEM to ship coreboot by default, you better make sure the OEM won't
fall into the Linux netbook trap where people returned lots of machines
because they expected to be able to run Windows applications. OEMs are
also extremely cost-conscious, and if they can save a few cents per
board without risk, they will do it. The key words are "save money" and
"no risk". Given the per-mainboard licensing cost for BIOS, coreboot can
serve as an alternative if there is no risk involved.
Regards,
Carl-Daniel
--
http://www.hailfinger.org/
7:33 a.m.
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
<c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006(a)gmx.net> wrote:
OEMs want fire-and-forget solutions without functional regressions.
coreboot can serve as fire-and-forget solution, but if we certify
consumer mainboards which can't run Windows, the certificate will be
essentially worthless.
I agree that OEMs would want that. However, I don't think that all the
coreboot developers could commit to that level of testing right now.
AFAICT, testing of any kind is very difficult to get done if I don't
own the affected hardware.
With all due respect, I don't think this information has any bearing
on my position.
How do I show booting Windows 7 for a board I am working on? If I
can't because I don't have a license for Windows, should I not be able
to get the coreboot certification?
Fair enough, but it's certainly got to be better than not running any
OS on the machine as it does demonstrate some level of functionality.
For me, "Developer's choice" implies that the board already works
perfectly fine, and has all the hardware features which make it easy to
test new coreboot versions.
I believe in honest advertising, and if the machine barely works, we
should not certify it, but we could list it as "fun project if you want
to finish a port".
I agree that "Developer's choice" implies too much functionality. :)
However, I still think we need a way to invite more people and orgs
into the project. I think that we need some way to say that certain
boards are a good place to start for those looking to contribute.
Ideally, one day we won't even need this level of certification as
everything will just ship with coreboot. :)
Nobody is going to test with Tseng Labs graphics cards because they are
no longer on sale (actually, they haven't been on sale anytime in the
last 12 years).
Nobody is going to test with Intel graphics cards either unless you can
actually show that such cards are on sale for mere mortals.
So basically you have ATI(AMD) and Nvidia for external graphics, and
maybe Matrox in niche markets.
Intel and S3 and others are only available as onboard options.
I have an ATI PCIe card and would likely use that to test, but
requiring both ATI and Nvidia out of me is a little much.
So FreeDOS would be OK for you? Small, free, and it will probably run
just fine even if major parts of the board are malfunctioning because
the port is unfinished.
To be clear, I think you are attacking another straw man. I
specifically suggested Debian of some form. I may not have been clear
with my reasons, so here they are: it does have a chance of having
drivers for the majority of the hardware, it uses more sophisticated
hardware initialization techniques, it's a well supported dev
environment for coreboot, and it's easy to find and download a legal
copy for free.
If there is software that can verify ACPI and other needed
functionality from FreeDOS, maybe it would make a good platform. I
honestly have no idea.
I am not denying that there is a demand for Windows. I am simply
saying that I would like to be able to participate in the
certification of board, and I don't have a copy of Windows to test
with.
On 04.10.2010 02:11, Warren Turkal wrote:
This is interesting news for me. I think that's really great.
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 10:58 AM, phorsyon
<phorsyon(a)gmx.net> wrote:
I think a few vendors ship some systems with coreboot if you ask nicely,
but they are either in the server or embedded space, not general
consumer space. I consider myself as enthusiast and would like to
share my thoughts about
coreboot certification and PR as a person from outside the coreboot project. I
hope this will help you to see this project from another perspective and
therefore helpful for your plans and further actions. Let me say I would
really appreciate it, if vendors would ship their products preloaded with
coreboot. ;-)
We are not vendors, and AFAIK no hardware OEM vendors ship with
coreboot pre-loaded.
To make coreboot popular, it needs (a) a feature
people want, (b) major
vendors to deliver it and (c) available documentation for all components to
make it work with most boards. These requirements are interdependent and must
be solved as whole. To get c vendors must be convinced to want b and therefore
coreboot needs a. So what's a? It surely is fast boot up, but depending on
what your target audience is, it might also be boot non-free OSes and works
with proprietary drivers. If you want to make vendors want b it's definitly
required to target the average user.
I do not believe that (c) is strictly required in that you don't need
detailed bios developer guides once the code is available. It would be
useful, but I don't see it as being required.
We also need to be realistic. OEMs are not taking up coreboot in mass
right now. We need to set the certification bar at the point that it
would be useful for the coreboot project. I believe that setting the
certification bar allow a more rapid development of coreboot code
would be much more productive that pie-in-the-sky arguments about what
to do with all the OEMs that want to ship coreboot.
Remember the complaints about "Designed for
Windows Vista" and the
machines which were too slow to be useful? People still remember that
marketing disaster years after it happened. If we ever certify some
hardware without caring about Windows, we should make that explicit, and
call it a feature. "Coreboot certified board for the anti-closed-source
movement, will refuse to run Windows".
First of all, I think you are attacking a straw man. My point has
nothing to do with being anti-closed-source. My point is that I don't
own a license for Windows and wouldn't be able to do the testing
necessary if that's a gate for certification. I have no problem with a
machine running Windows (or any other OS), but I don't think that
should be needed for for minimum compliance.
The variant which can run Windows
would be "Coreboot certified board". Except for niche vendors, nobody
will care about the anti-closed-source certification, making it moot.
I just think that bar is too high to leverage the community of folks
that would like to see and even help coreboot progress.
Vendors do not
ship coreboot yet.
AFAIK Artec, Tyan, Technexion, MSI and some other vendors ship coreboot
for specific systems on request. Not sure about the current state, but
AFAIK they did that in the past. I believe that
we only have the
community at this point. Given that fact, we need to do what we can to
get vendors interested. I believe that maturing the coreboot codebase
is probably the most effective way to do that.
Booting Windows 7 on recent consumer boards is probably the best way to
show vendors that coreboot is a viable BIOS replacement. This needs
porting work, and of course it needs testing. For the
record, I believe that Linux probably has a mature
enough ACPI stack and other systems to be pretty good barometer of
compliance short of having an independent test suite.
Ummm... Linux will tolerate absolutely crappy ACPI code, and not even
complain loudly if it has to fix stuff. Given the current market share
of Linux, there is no money in verifying ACPI code under Linux for any
consumer mainboard. What about calling it "Coreboot: Developer's
Choice". Also freely available
documentation would be a nice core requirement for that.
I actually don't like "minimal." However, I also don't like
"Coreboot:
Developer's Choice." What would you think about "Coreboot beta test"?
- Add-on components most importantly Nvidia/ATI cards
I don't believe that we should bias toward some particular class of
add-on card or some vendor of add-on card.
- The OS of choice (BSD, Linux, Windows)
While I agree with this sentiment, we can't test everything. I think
that we should agree on a standard test OS. That OS needs to be freely
obtainable to make the testing bar very low.
Frankly, I
don't think that we are aiming for average users at this
time. We are aiming for the developers that can advocate coreboot's
use in OEM hardware or folks who see enough of an advantage to pay for
a port to their hardware. These are very sophisticated users.
But OEMs won't care unless we can make average users happy. If you want
an OEM to ship coreboot by default, you better make sure the OEM won't
fall into the Linux netbook trap where people returned lots of machines
because they expected to be able to run Windows applications. OEMs are
also extremely cost-conscious, and if they can save a few cents per
board without risk, they will do it. The key words are "save money" and
"no risk". Given the per-mainboard licensing cost for BIOS, coreboot can
serve as an alternative if there is no risk involved.
Makes sense. However, I think that OEMs that need Windows can be sure
to certify their systems for Windows.
Also, I don't think that Windows support should be part of the base
certification as it alienates a number of people who are really
interested in seeing and helping coreboot succeed.
Also, I think that we should start pretty minimally as definitions can
be changed as time goes on, but I don't want us to bite off more than
we can chew and just abandon the effort as a result.
Thanks,
wt
8:49 a.m.
Am 04.10.2010 07:33, schrieb Warren Turkal:
How do I show booting Windows 7 for a board I am
working on? If I
can't because I don't have a license for Windows, should I not be able
to get the coreboot certification?
That's the difference between a
certification that's useful for vendors
and one that's useful for computing enthusiasts.
Whoever produces and sells boards will have some Windows 7 license (and
probably the dev builds to improve testing, as well as the Microsoft
test kits) lying around.
That means, certification would be for different purposes.. a "coreboot
+ Linux" certificate would state that the board is actually useful
beyond freedos (eg. networking works, HPET is around, ACPI is at least
somewhat useful, even if Linux's ACPI interpreter is more forgiving than
perl)
A "coreboot + Windows" certificate could build onto that, stating that
Windows operation was tested, too. Stacking them this way would ensure
that Windows support doesn't break Linux (or any other free OS).
But vendors will (except for some specialty shops or special customer
requests) require the latter - with no regard for the former, except
maybe to assess how much work they'd have to put in/sponsor to make a
coreboot port Windows compatible.
As a side note on "Windows compatible", I'm not 100% sure on this, but I
think the "Designed for Windows" set of certificates by Microsoft handle
firmware behaviour, too.
Patrick
7:50 p.m.
On 04.10.2010 02:11, Warren Turkal wrote:
*snip*
For me "beta test" sounds like almost done, but needs testing. What about
simply calling it "Coreboot: Under development". I can't imagine it to be
printed on a box though, but as you said your're focussing on the community,
at least for now, a list in the wiki showing all certified products will be
more appropriate.
*snip*
This probably was a little unclear. I meant to list what users expectations
are, but not what criteria for certification should be. From a technical
perspective I totally agree that every connector/header should be funtional.
As Carl-Daniel stated, there are practically just ATI/AMD and Nvidia. And I
also agree that it can't be expected every developer has both to test with.
But you are not the only dev, it's possible to delegate test to each other and
probalby to kreep track of that in the wiki. There is a testsystem:
http://www.coreboot.org/Distributed_and_Automated_Testsystem
I have not digged into it, but it's probably possible to extend it for semi-
automatic testing. So that if dev A has written code which also needs testing
for hardware only dev B has access to, dev A can call for dev B to test it. To
scale well such a system would require information about who has which
hardware to run tests on. This would allow for automatic notification.
If that's for the development certification, I totally agree. I always had the
consumer in mind.
As mentioned above it's meant as user expectations not certification criteria.
Agreed
Probably having these listed as separate features would be best.
*snip*
It defintely would be helpful for new developers and leave a good impression to
verndors/OEMs. Right now it's not that easy for an outstanding person to tell
what works and how well (also e.g. has freely available documentations or
not). So improving infrastructure on this side will pay off, I guess.
I think of a combination of the automatic testing + semi-automatic testing as
described above and a status site to keep track of this details. For example
board $FOO has this components where this where tested an that not. Also
additional test like with works Nvidia or ATI GPU could be introduced. This
system could deliver all the status information needed, so anyone could tell
where the project stands. The lazy evaluation would allow to make good use of
the rare hardware around the developers. It's also an invitation for testers
only, as they would always know what still needs testing and do the test if
they find the time. This eliminates the need to setup the full automatic
testsystem, which apparently aims for vendors only. So you may want to think
that through. ;-)
*snip*
On Monday 04 October 2010, Patrick Georgi wrote:
What about
calling it "Coreboot: Developer's Choice". Also freely
available documentation would be a nice core requirement for that.
I actually don't like "minimal." However, I also don't like
"Coreboot:
Developer's Choice." What would you think about "Coreboot beta test"?
This mark
should assure that all parts of the board work,
meaning every feature, expected by the average user, hhis is important to
please them. So that this mark actually means something to them. If they
have a good reason to care about it, also the vendors have one, and this
would give the coreboot project the authority dictate such high
standards.
Things normal users care about to work:
- All build-in components (net, snd, gfx)
I should have explicitly included this in the standard certification level.
- All ports/expansion slots (exceptions: rs232,
parallel, floppy)
Already said this in the standard certification level except that I
didn't make any exceptions. It's sloppy to leave physical and header
ports not working. - Everything
related to power management as supported by the underlying
hardware and drivers (All power states, ACPI). Also needed to improve
drivers.
For the record, I included this in the "better ACPI support" section
of the standard certification. The OSPM part of ACPI includes all
power states of all parts of the system.
- Add-on components most importantly Nvidia/ATI
cards
I don't believe that we should bias toward some particular class of
add-on card or some vendor of add-on card. - The OS of
choice (BSD, Linux, Windows)
While I agree with this sentiment, we can't test everything. I think
that we should agree on a standard test OS. That OS needs to be freely
obtainable to make the testing bar very low. - fast booting
I think this might be a little too subjective for certification. What
if a server vendor wanted to ship coreboot firmware that does a
longish running operation everytime before booting. Would that never
qualify for a coreboot certification? Things normal
users don't care about:
- most legacy stuff like rs232, parallel, floppy
As stated above, I think that leaving ports with physical or header
connections nonfunctional is just sloppy, and it would not reflect
well on the project to allow board in that state to get a standard
certification. - pro features
like *PXE, AoE, iSCSI (Those could be combined under a
logo like "Coreboot for Professionals")
I agree about things like PXE, AoE, and iSCSI being more important to
big iron. I'm not sure that we should have another certification level
to support them right out of the gate, however. More certification
levels is more confusing. Keeping track
of detailed information in the wiki is a good thing. If
vendors decide to deliver coreboot it should be as easy as possible for
them.
I am not sure this data is simple enough for wiki. However, I haven't
given this too much thought. Am 04.10.2010 07:33, schrieb Warren Turkal:
Carl-Daniel and myself were refering to the former one and Warrens seems to
focus on the latter one. What do you think about doing one after another?
Start off with minimal certificate to attract more developers and call it e.g.
"Coreboot Beta Test" or "Coreboot under development". And at some
later point,
if OEMs got interested, go for a consumer certificate like "Coreboot
compatible" or "Coreboot certified". The latter one should focus on the
average
user's needs/expectations, delivering a fire-and-forget solution for OEMs. The
minimal certificate won't need to be printed on a box, as a product list on web
would do fine. This would also prevent later confusion due to having more than
one certificate logo out in the wild at the same time, as minimal and consumer
certification time periods may overlap.
How do I show booting Windows 7 for a board I am
working on? If I
can't because I don't have a license for Windows, should I not be able
to get the coreboot certification?
That's the difference between a certification that's useful for vendors
and one that's useful for computing enthusiasts. Whoever produces and sells boards will have some
Windows 7 license (and
probably the dev builds to improve testing, as well as the Microsoft
test kits) lying around.
True, the OEMs are likely to help out on that matter.
That means, certification would be for different
purposes.. a "coreboot
+ Linux" certificate would state that the board is actually useful
beyond freedos (eg. networking works, HPET is around, ACPI is at least
somewhat useful, even if Linux's ACPI interpreter is more forgiving than
perl)
A "coreboot + Windows" certificate could build onto that, stating that
Windows operation was tested, too. Stacking them this way would ensure
that Windows support doesn't break Linux (or any other free OS).
A "Coreboot + $OS" logo could give a bad impression, as it will look like
coreboot can only boot a specific OS. So a minimal and a consumer version of a
certificate, where only the latter one would be printed on the box would have a
more to-the-point expression to others.
But vendors will (except for some specialty shops or
special customer
requests) require the latter - with no regard for the former, except
maybe to assess how much work they'd have to put in/sponsor to make a
coreboot port Windows compatible.
As a side note on "Windows compatible", I'm not 100% sure on this, but I
think the "Designed for Windows" set of certificates by Microsoft handle
firmware behaviour, too.
This certaintly has the potential to threaten a coreboot certification. Even if
there's no criteria now, Microsoft could add one to prevent OEMs to certify
for both Windows and Coreboot at the same time. When the time comes for a
coreboot consumer certificate some investigation on that matter is needed too.
Patrick
7:56 p.m.
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 10:50 AM, phorsyon <phorsyon(a)gmx.net> wrote:
This certaintly has the potential to threaten a
coreboot certification. Even if
there's no criteria now, Microsoft could add one to prevent OEMs to certify
for both Windows and Coreboot at the same time. When the time comes for a
coreboot consumer certificate some investigation on that matter is needed too.
MS told me five years ago they'd be happy to certify coreboot as long
as we changed the name from linuxbios.
They have nothing against coreboot in principle -- quite the contrary.
ron
8:23 p.m.
On Monday 04 October 2010, ron minnich wrote:
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 10:50 AM, phorsyon
<phorsyon(a)gmx.net> wrote:
Well that's at least one thing less to care.
LinuxBIOS wasn't a good name anyway. BIOS just sounds so "legacy". ;-)
This certaintly has the potential to threaten a
coreboot certification.
Even if there's no criteria now, Microsoft could add one to prevent OEMs
to certify for both Windows and Coreboot at the same time. When the time
comes for a coreboot consumer certificate some investigation on that
matter is needed too.
MS told me five years ago they'd be happy to certify coreboot as long
as we changed the name from linuxbios.
They have nothing against coreboot in principle -- quite the contrary.
ron 
9:23 p.m.
phorsyon wrote:
a minimal and a consumer version of a certificate
As was mentioned, the more certifications there are, the less easy it
is for the market to make use of them.
I don't think we can afford to try to market two different
certifications. I would only like to try for one; "consumer coreboot"
or rather; "coreboot complete"
Developers don't want problems any more than average users just
because they may know how to deal with problems.
Anyway, if we would have criteria then we could also track them.
Any interested developer could easily discover what was missing for
a board to be coreboot complete, judge if it is a good choice for
them at the moment, and if not just look for completeness of other
boards.
//Peter
7:59 a.m.
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Peter Stuge <peter(a)stuge.se> wrote:
phorsyon wrote:
I agree with Peter here, and will add my $0.02 to the thread...
Certification is a *huge* process, at least if you want it to mean anything.
I would expect that a true certification effort would rival development of
the code itself. Multiple levels of certification only complicate the
process and confuse users. And quite honestly, I don't expect that to happen
unless a lot of dedicated resources are poured into it.
Perhaps the best thing is simply to publish a giant testing matrix for each
board. Certify against the absolute bare minimum technical requirements, ie,
can all on-board devices be initialized by firmware, are SMBIOS tables
populated, etc. Leave it up to the system builder to decide whether or not
if it's usable for the application.
Maybe someone (FSF?) wants to create a higher-level standard that includes
Coreboot along with a full free software stack, but that shouldn't be key to
Coreboot certification at any level or you risk alienating major commercial
partners. Heck, everyone in the Coreboot community ought to be flattered if
a major OEM ships a "Made for Win7" computer with Coreboot on it.
Certify stuff that you know, leave everything else up to vendors.
a minimal and a consumer version of a certificate
As was mentioned, the more certifications there are, the less easy it
is for the market to make use of them.
I don't think we can afford to try to market two different
certifications. I would only like to try for one; "consumer coreboot"
or rather; "coreboot complete"
Developers don't want problems any more than average users just
because they may know how to deal with problems.
Anyway, if we would have criteria then we could also track them.
Any interested developer could easily discover what was missing for
a board to be coreboot complete, judge if it is a good choice for
them at the moment, and if not just look for completeness of other
boards.
10:26 a.m.
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 10:59 PM, David Hendricks
<david.hendricks(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Peter Stuge
<peter(a)stuge.se> wrote:
Agreed.
phorsyon wrote:
I agree with Peter here, and will add my $0.02 to the thread...
Certification is a *huge* process, at least if you want it to mean anything.
I would expect that a true certification effort would rival development of
the code itself. Multiple levels of certification only complicate the
process and confuse users. And quite honestly, I don't expect that to happen
unless a lot of dedicated resources are poured into it. a minimal and a consumer version of a certificate
As was mentioned, the more certifications there are, the less easy it
is for the market to make use of them.
I don't think we can afford to try to market two different
certifications. I would only like to try for one; "consumer coreboot"
or rather; "coreboot complete"
Developers don't want problems any more than average users just
because they may know how to deal with problems.
Anyway, if we would have criteria then we could also track them.
Any interested developer could easily discover what was missing for
a board to be coreboot complete, judge if it is a good choice for
them at the moment, and if not just look for completeness of other
boards. Perhaps the best thing is simply to publish a giant
testing matrix for each
board.
This would certainly be a huge improvement. Maybe this should be our
actual first step?
Certify against the absolute bare minimum technical
requirements, ie,
can all on-board devices be initialized by firmware, are SMBIOS tables
populated, etc.
I actually fully agree with this. However, we would need some way to
tell if things like the SMBIOS tables are populated. That means that
we'd need some form of software to run after the coreboot step to
verify. Since we don't have a piece of software that is only that, how
do we test for certification? I see a couple options:
* don't certify anything until we develop a coreboot confirmation
payload of some type
* certify based on some software stack that we can currently use
Given that I don't see a coreboot confirmation payload being developed
overnight, I would think that we should start with some software stack
that we can currently use. In my eyes, this means using some easy to
obtain Linux distribution and a bit of software to test compliance
with some set of standards.
How would others solve the problem of testing for compliance?
Leave it up to the system builder to decide whether or
not
if it's usable for the application.
Agreed.
Maybe someone (FSF?) wants to create a higher-level
standard that includes
Coreboot along with a full free software stack, but that shouldn't be key to
Coreboot certification at any level or you risk alienating major commercial
partners.
Agreed. I wasn't trying to place a higher-level standard like "Works
with Linux." I was trying to find the lowest barrier way to test for
some minimum level of compliance.
Heck, everyone in the Coreboot community ought to be
flattered if
a major OEM ships a "Made for Win7" computer with Coreboot on it.
Certify stuff that you know, leave everything else up to vendors.
I think this is one of the best perspective statements in this thread so far. :)
Thanks,
wt
10:59 a.m.
Hi,
Maybe good start to use some existing test suite
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Ubuntu-Kernel-Developer-releases-F...
http://smackerelofopinion.blogspot.com/2010/08/firmware-test-suite-biosac...
https://launchpad.net/~firmware-testing-team
http://linuxfirmwarekit.org/
This is based on http://linuxfirmwarekit.org/
Thanks,
Rudolf
11:59 a.m.
Does that software kit run in Linux? Is it relying on Linux's ACPI
implementation some how?
Thanks,
wt
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Rudolf Marek <r.marek(a)assembler.cz> wrote:
Hi,
Maybe good start to use some existing test suite
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Ubuntu-Kernel-Developer-releases-F...
http://smackerelofopinion.blogspot.com/2010/08/firmware-test-suite-biosac...
https://launchpad.net/~firmware-testing-team
http://linuxfirmwarekit.org/
This is based on http://linuxfirmwarekit.org/
Thanks,
Rudolf
--
coreboot mailing list: coreboot(a)coreboot.org
http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
12:47 p.m.
Hi,
I used it like year ago. It is basically some linux program that is doing
various checks using tools or kernel.
Someone needs to try out agin.
R.
6:34 p.m.
Making your own certification is hard. Using someone else's test is
easier. Maybe we should invert the problem. Have a page which shows,
for each board, what suite of tests it passes under coreboot.
- boots vista
- boots windows 7
- boots linux
- runs intels firmware validation
and so on.
ron
7:27 a.m.
Wondered if you guys have seen this:
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Intel-releases-GRUB-based-BIOS-tes...
-Anders
Den 05-10-2010 18:34, ron minnich skrev:
Making your own certification is hard. Using someone
else's test is
easier. Maybe we should invert the problem. Have a page which shows,
for each board, what suite of tests it passes under coreboot.
- boots vista
- boots windows 7
- boots linux
- runs intels firmware validation
and so on.
ron
1:24 a.m.
* Anders Jenbo <anders(a)jenbo.dk> [110301 07:27]:
Wondered if you guys have seen this:
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Intel-releases-GRUB-based-BIOS-tes...
Did anyone work on getting this to work on coreboot?
Stefan
9:28 p.m.
My .02 from an end user (wannabe) pov:
In general I agree with Warren Turkal:
I'd like a certification that ensures coreboot and free sofware work
with the hardware, irrelevant of what happens with non-free
software. I don't mind having other certification (tags) for non-free
software for whoever cares about it. What I would regret having less
hardware certified because there wasn't a certification option for
free software uses. Coreboot is good for many things and one of them
is getting rid of legacy where possible. Requiring everyone to support
legacy just because it is a current big market segment will only
perpetuate this legacy burdened market. The argument works exchanging
non-free software with legacy, only that non-free software is nastier
than legacy. So legacy, nonfre-software should be optional for certification.
Free software support should be required for any certification,
then some would also tag windows7 or whatever.
It would require some credible organization doing the tests, I
guess. Or maybe it would be a kind of trust system ? (the different
certificates and their exact meaning would be clear, then anyone could
certify some hard and customers would decide whether they believe a
certificate signed by one or other party, or even self signed by
a vendor).
The tests should be reproducible, so the exact versions of kernel,
distribution, etc. should be stated, even if a particular choice is
not a requirement, documenting the choice tested should be.
There should be non-technical requirements too:
- support code GPLed and integrated
- maybe security criteria ? I don't know about it
- something on availability of the tested hardware ?
A problem I can see is what gets certified precisely . a mainboard?
a whole computer ? whatever as long as it is clearly stated ?
My experience is that of a consumer trying to buy hardware to
use with coreboot. I picked every component in my new PC according
to price, the performance I wanted and the information on coreboot.org,
more or less accepting the risk for the parts apparently less well
supported.
And I mostly got what I expected except partly with the CPU.
I would have liked more precise lists of what CPU models have
been tested. I can't be sure but I suspect that my particular CPU wouldn't
work on any supported mainboard right now (well, not even the shipped
BIOS worked until I upgraded it). I've found out that the
information on documentation of the CPU was accurate, an so it is
just a matter of time/effort until it works, but the
site gave the impression that any AMD CPU would work (there were lists
of mainboards and chipsets, but the CPU part was not very detailed, beyond
brand or family). Then looking at the code I found some revisions didn't
even have a position in a bitfield.
What I mean is that if it is a board that gets certified, then a customer
may buy it and put a new CPU there that doesn't work with coreboot. It may
happen with other hardware, but I can't think of any example. Maybe RAM ?
On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 02:15:44AM -0700, Warren Turkal wrote:
So what ? If a consumer can buy a system with coreboot and gnu and linux
that works and gives her all due freedoms why should she care for ACPI,etc?
I understand most users will want more, I just wouldn't rule out a certificate
option unrelated to legacy or current standards. Maybe some vendor wants
to offer some advanced features that is too cumbersome to adapt to ACPI...
Or open hardware vendors may opt for just skipping ACPI and just giving
the hardware details and linux drivers...
I agree one of the certification options should require it
And is something we don't need to help stay the same. So I say require it
only for some of the optional tags.
Laughing is healthy. Let them laugh.
I don't see the marketing problem if there are windows tags.
And if you test and find that it doesn't work with non-free drivers,
that is an answer, but not very productive, is there a problem in some
initialisation in coreboot or in the driver? You can't fix the driver,
so supporting it is a tall order, so optional.
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Carl-Daniel
Hailfinger
<c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006(a)gmx.net> wrote:
[...]
Well, if we
only care about Linux, you can avoid most (if not all) of
ACPI on many machines, and you can avoid SeaBIOS as well. Heck, you
could even avoid FILO and require a Linux kernel in flash. Whether such
ab board would be usable for end users is a totally different question.
Booting into a certain OS is clearly not the only bar
that we should
be looking for. It would need to comply with various standards like
ACPI, etc.
It might be one of the bars. On the other hand ACPI compliance could
be certified by the ACPI consortium (there is one, I guess...), maybe .
Likewise for any other standard.
IMHO being
able to install a Linux distribution from CD is an absolute
must even if you only target professional users in clusters etc.
I agree.
Windows
support means a board is usable by the general population, and
this is something vendors care about deeply.
We renamed
LinuxBIOS to
coreboot exactly because people said all the time "I don't want Linux",
and EFI marketing would love to make fun of us if we ever said "Linux
only is good enough for certification".
I believe that most of the folks who care enough to
use Coreboot at
this time are probably running Linux or some other free OS. I also
believe that most developers who have access to systems are probably
running on or have easy access to some free OS. I also know that
non-free OSes are not easily available to everyone. It's not that I
believe that we can't test for non-free software support. It's just
that I believe that certifying the boards for Coreboot should not gate
on that having been done.
Well, if A wants B to certify that coreboot supports OS W
on hardware H I guess A should contribute any changes to coreboot and
give B the hardware H and the necessary W licenses, if A can find some
B willing to use W. If W was free software the requirement would be
the same but it'd be much easier to comply with. If W license was
particulary nasty it might even be impossible to use W for testing
coreboot.
But A shouldn't be required to have any deal with windows to certificate
coreboot works in H without windows. SO corebot+windows certification
should generally be more expensive/cumbersome than
coreboot+freesoftware certification only (depending on the case, maybe
coreboot+hurd may be difficult to certify...). Sounds logical.
Ideally, having some OS independent test suite would
be the best
approach I think, but I don't see that getting developed overnight. :)
Is that feasible at all?
Maybe we should have multiple compliance levels like
"Coreboot
minimal" and "Coreboot standard"? The minimal could be some set of
requirements. The standard could be the minimal requirements plus some
extra set of requirements. We could also have tags for the compliance.
These could be used to indicate special support like Windows or
something like that.
Very reasonable.
* ACPI
- DSDT should exist
Is that needed to develop coreboot further ? Not sure it should be
required for minimal. Maybe split minimal and minimal + DSDT
* Able to load VGA option ROM
unless they find a way not to use it, like free framebuffer drivers
or so on ? If propietary software is not a requirement, propietary
firmware shouldn't either, whenever it can be worked around.
* Able to boot into an OS not stored as a coreboot
payload (e.g. boot
from CD, USB, or SATA drive). For the minimal certfication, I believe
that OS should be Debian since it's a well supported environment for
developing coreboot.
I would simply say that it should boot a system that allows coreboot
development using only free software, and it should document which precise system,
version, etc. it is. Of course depending on what it is it may be easier
or harder to find certifiers (or customers once certified).
And then we come to the thorny issue of what does "only free software" mean,
since debian for instance includes kernel blobs or similar issues...
Possible tags:
MSWin{XP,7}
ReactOS
GPXE
AOE
ISCSI
...
The process for adding tags to the certification criteria should be
clear and simple. We won't be able to find all useful tags from the
start.
Something about power saving capabilities would be useful, not sure
what or how...
We should probably note the known revisions that are
compliant for
each board. This doesn't mean that every revision that would pass the
requirements needs to be listed. Only tested versions should be
listed. Those revisions would be the recommended revisions with users
using other revisions at their own risk. I could imagine something
like the following for a mobo:
minimal: 11 99 103 150
standard: 50 75 135 155
minimal+Win7: 77
Ok. Adding the rest of hardware and software tested, like
Debian lenny , AMD Phenom II X4 910e, such and such DDR3 DIMMs,
such VGA...
The more diverse hardware and software tested the more work
to certify it, and the more tempting for consumers, who would
evaluate the risk of using it with other hardware or software.
One could risk buying a certified system with different amount
of RAM than tested and install a different distribution, etc.
>> Frankly, I think that ability to use the free
drivers should be good
>> enough. We shouldn't be hold out any kind of coreboot certification on
>> the condition that non-free drivers work.
>
ACK
There are two
aspects of the problem:
- We can't test everything (fact of life)
- Closed-source drivers have a huge market share, and won't go away any
time soon
Agreed. I also think that some developers won't be able to test
certain non-free software. For instance, I wouldn't be able to test
that Windows 7 boots. I also don't have an Nvidia card to test their
drivers.
If the code's not merged into SeaBIOS, we shouldn't certify the build.
Yes. Not sure SeaBIOS is needed for the most basic certification,
but in general if any support code is not commited then certification
should wait. Not sure this is a huge problem, I'd say one wants to
benefit from the community testing stuff before paying or otherwise
causing someone to thoroughly test for certification. So waiting
until a little after committed would be wise. Although I guess
hardware is obsoleted quickly and vendors may want certification
before they put it on the market... so I don't know how much of a
burden this is, but I think it should be required. If Google Summer
of Code candidates where required to send patches, vendors should
be required to have support code good enough for being merged.
Sorry for being verbose.
2:16 a.m.
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 12:28 PM, xdrudis <xdrudis(a)tinet.cat> wrote:
I think that we should require ACPI compliance as it is an integral
part of modern computing on X86 hardware, and it makes enumeration
significantly more efficient or just plain possible in some cases.
Also, I think that we need to be quite careful about overloading our
users with information. Otherwise, out users will be overwhelmed and
will not understand everything that we try to communicate with them.
Thanks,
wt
Booting into a
certain OS is clearly not the only bar that we should
be looking for. It would need to comply with various standards like
ACPI, etc.
It might be one of the bars. On the other hand ACPI compliance could
be certified by the ACPI consortium (there is one, I guess...), maybe .
Likewise for any other standard.
6:20 a.m.
Warren Turkal wrote:
Heh, no. It's easy to think so, but don't fall into that trap.
Certification requires a fair amount of QA which isn't being done
right now is just my 2.
//Peter
- SeaBIOS
source code is available
- SeaBIOS code is merged into SeaBIOS git
Yes. Doesn't this imply the previous item?
9:32 a.m.
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Peter Stuge <peter(a)stuge.se> wrote:
Warren Turkal wrote:
Heh, no. It's easy to think so, but don't fall into that trap.
I mean that if we accept that the code in the SeaBIOS git repo is
complete for a given board, can we assume that the code is available?
wt
- SeaBIOS
source code is available
- SeaBIOS code is merged into SeaBIOS git
Yes. Doesn't this imply the previous item?
3200
days inactive
3351
days old
25 comments
11 participants
participants (11)
-
Anders Jenbo -
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger -
David Hendricks -
Patrick Georgi -
Peter Stuge -
phorsyon -
ron minnich -
Rudolf Marek -
Stefan Reinauer -
Warren Turkal -
xdrudis