Hello Patrick,
A 32bit coreboot doesn't preclude providing a 64bit uefi interface (as is
needed for windows), and that's all that matters when people talk about "64bit UEFI".
Agreed. In such a case I need just a super-tiny "Tiano_Core" payload which does the following: [1] Changes 32 bit protected mode to 64 bit mode; [2] To understand logical HDD/SSD disk partition, eg. to understand how to assist/make true FAT 32 /boot/EFI/ partition on the HDD/SSD/eMMC disk
Do you have such one (you worked on something, I understood), but does it do what I spelled here?
Thank you, Zoran _______
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Patrick Georgi pgeorgi@google.com wrote:
A 32bit coreboot doesn't preclude providing a 64bit uefi interface (as is needed for windows), and that's all that matters when people talk about "64bit UEFI".
Zoran Stojsavljevic zoran.stojsavljevic@gmail.com schrieb am So., 14. Feb. 2016 um 13:40 Uhr:
Hello Patrick,
You see, sometimes ago, when Coreboot came to existence, they used to call it Linux BIOS. I actually like this term. Linux BIOS!
Now, my aim is the following: to make Coreboot alternative for/to UEFI compliant BIOS. For this to happen, I need there several things: [1] I'll see if FSP itself can be 64 bit (for now, it is 32 bit, and I need to do some work there to see how it looks/is integrated as part of the real 64 bit UEFI BIOS); [2] Coreboot to be 64 bit; [3] To understand logical HDD/SSD disk partition, eg. to understand how to assist/make true FAT 32 /boot/EFI/ partition on the HDD/SSD/eMMC disk (minimalistic 64 bit Tiano Core which will do just this - Coreboot payload).
And, yes, if this can help, we can make it 32 bit UEFI compliant, for the beginning... Then, the following is required: [1] To understand logical HDD/SSD disk partition, eg. to understand how to assist/make true FAT 32 /boot/EFI/ partition on the HDD/SSD/eMMC disk (minimalistic 32 bit Tiano Core which will do just this - Coreboot payload).
We do NOT want this MBR and who_knows_where parts of OS boot-loader on the actual HDD (MBR + adjacent 31KB of the disk), this crap hanging still out/around, do we?!
Make sense? ;-)
Thank you, Zoran _______
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Patrick Georgi pgeorgi@google.com wrote:
2016-02-14 8:32 GMT+01:00 Zoran Stojsavljevic < zoran.stojsavljevic@gmail.com>:
[1] FSP 32 bit as is;
That's probably best discussed with some Intel field rep for FSP.
[2] Coreboot to be 64 bit Coreboot, compiled for INTEL x86_64
architecture; The 64bit support was started, but I wouldn't expect it to work just right yet. We don't even enable it by default anywhere, because it isn't really needed. Why do you want coreboot to be 64bit code?
[3] Have the minimum minimorum of Tiano Core (just UEFI HDD/SSD UEFI
boot
partition maker, everything else scrapped)!
Tianocore is a bit of a sore spot. We have three different implementations of a TianoCore payload, one by Scott Duplichan, working on some AMD board, one by Intel, working on some Intel board (and available in the TianoCore repository) and my copy that I irregularly work on.
I'd expect the bare minimum payload able to boot Windows still to take 500-700kb compressed in flash.
Patrick
Google Germany GmbH, ABC-Str. 19, 20354 Hamburg Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891, Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg Geschäftsführer: Matthew Scott Sucherman, Paul Terence Manicle
-
Zoran Stojsavljevic