Starting the coreboot 4.10 release process
Hi everybody, with this mail I'm officially starting the 4.10 release process. As per the first step of our checklist (Documentation/releases/checklist.md), I hereby announce the intent to release coreboot 4.10 in about 2 weeks. I'm aiming for May 28th to avoid releasing into the weekend or on Memorial Day in the US, but I'll likely lock down the commit we'll designate 4.10 during those days to give some room for testing. I created a copy of the checklist on https://piratenpad.de/p/coreboot4.10-release-checklist, also including the current state of the 4.10 release notes. Please test the boards you have around and provide fixes, please be careful with intrusive changes (and maybe postpone them until after the release) and please update the release notes (Documentation/releases/ coreboot-4.10-relnotes.md or near the bottom of the etherpad doc, I'll carry them over into our git repo then). As promised with the 4.9 release there won't be deprecations after 4.10. However we need to finalize our set of deprecations we want to announce with 4.10 that will happen after the 4.11 release (those also belong in the release notes). Regards, Patrick -- Google Germany GmbH, ABC-Str. 19, 20354 Hamburg Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891, Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg Geschäftsführer: Paul Manicle, Halimah DeLaine Prado
I've just added a "Recently tested mainboards:" section to the end of https://piratenpad.de/p/coreboot4.10-release-checklist . I think its' existence could encourage the people to submit a board status report for their board, to increase its' visibility and attract more potential users/developers who'll read these release notes at some opensource-dedicated websites and may become interested at coreboot project. This section includes 6 laptops and 2 desktops for which the board status reports have been submitted during May and the beginning of June. Luckily 4.10 release is not there yet, so the people still have some time to submit a fresh board status for their board and then it could be included to this list. Also, regarding the significant changes: " ### Tianocore UEFI integrated as payload " . I hope it doesn't mean that Tianocore will become the default payload, since there are ideological/technical reasons against this ( I think there's a significant overlap between the groups of people who love / interested in coreboot and hate UEFI ) Recently tested mainboards: --------------------------- * Lenovo Ideapad G505S * Lenovo Thinkpad T400 * Lenovo Thinkpad T430 * Lenovo Thinkpad T430s baseboard * Lenovo Thinkpad X131e Chromebook * Lenovo Thinkpad X230 * Gigabyte GA-B75M-D3H * Asrock E350M1 On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 11:17 PM Patrick Georgi via coreboot <coreboot@coreboot.org> wrote:
Hi everybody,
with this mail I'm officially starting the 4.10 release process. As per the first step of our checklist (Documentation/releases/checklist.md), I hereby announce the intent to release coreboot 4.10 in about 2 weeks. I'm aiming for May 28th to avoid releasing into the weekend or on Memorial Day in the US, but I'll likely lock down the commit we'll designate 4.10 during those days to give some room for testing.
I created a copy of the checklist on https://piratenpad.de/p/coreboot4.10-release-checklist, also including the current state of the 4.10 release notes.
Please test the boards you have around and provide fixes, please be careful with intrusive changes (and maybe postpone them until after the release) and please update the release notes (Documentation/releases/coreboot-4.10-relnotes.md or near the bottom of the etherpad doc, I'll carry them over into our git repo then).
As promised with the 4.9 release there won't be deprecations after 4.10. However we need to finalize our set of deprecations we want to announce with 4.10 that will happen after the 4.11 release (those also belong in the release notes).
Regards, Patrick -- Google Germany GmbH, ABC-Str. 19, 20354 Hamburg Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891, Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg Geschäftsführer: Paul Manicle, Halimah DeLaine Prado _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-leave@coreboot.org
Your plan worked, I've just uploaded board status for 4 more boards. On 6/2/19 9:26 PM, Mike Banon wrote:
I've just added a "Recently tested mainboards:" section to the end of https://piratenpad.de/p/coreboot4.10-release-checklist . I think its' existence could encourage the people to submit a board status report for their board, to increase its' visibility and attract more potential users/developers who'll read these release notes at some opensource-dedicated websites and may become interested at coreboot project. This section includes 6 laptops and 2 desktops for which the board status reports have been submitted during May and the beginning of June. Luckily 4.10 release is not there yet, so the people still have some time to submit a fresh board status for their board and then it could be included to this list.
Also, regarding the significant changes: " ### Tianocore UEFI integrated as payload " . I hope it doesn't mean that Tianocore will become the default payload, since there are ideological/technical reasons against this ( I think there's a significant overlap between the groups of people who love / interested in coreboot and hate UEFI )
Recently tested mainboards: --------------------------- * Lenovo Ideapad G505S * Lenovo Thinkpad T400 * Lenovo Thinkpad T430 * Lenovo Thinkpad T430s baseboard * Lenovo Thinkpad X131e Chromebook * Lenovo Thinkpad X230 * Gigabyte GA-B75M-D3H * Asrock E350M1
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 11:17 PM Patrick Georgi via coreboot <coreboot@coreboot.org> wrote:
Hi everybody,
with this mail I'm officially starting the 4.10 release process. As per the first step of our checklist (Documentation/releases/checklist.md), I hereby announce the intent to release coreboot 4.10 in about 2 weeks. I'm aiming for May 28th to avoid releasing into the weekend or on Memorial Day in the US, but I'll likely lock down the commit we'll designate 4.10 during those days to give some room for testing.
I created a copy of the checklist on https://piratenpad.de/p/coreboot4.10-release-checklist, also including the current state of the 4.10 release notes.
Please test the boards you have around and provide fixes, please be careful with intrusive changes (and maybe postpone them until after the release) and please update the release notes (Documentation/releases/coreboot-4.10-relnotes.md or near the bottom of the etherpad doc, I'll carry them over into our git repo then).
As promised with the 4.9 release there won't be deprecations after 4.10. However we need to finalize our set of deprecations we want to announce with 4.10 that will happen after the 4.11 release (those also belong in the release notes).
Regards, Patrick -- Google Germany GmbH, ABC-Str. 19, 20354 Hamburg Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891, Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg Geschäftsführer: Paul Manicle, Halimah DeLaine Prado _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-leave@coreboot.org
coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-leave@coreboot.org
Thank you very much, Evgeny, and luckily I could see your additions here: https://piratenpad.de/p/coreboot4.10-release-checklist ( https://review.coreboot.org/cgit/board-status.git/log/ - Lenovo T420 , Lenovo X200 , Lenovo X220 , Lenovo T530 baseboard ) On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 11:12 PM Evgeny Zinoviev via coreboot <coreboot@coreboot.org> wrote:
Your plan worked, I've just uploaded board status for 4 more boards.
On 6/2/19 9:26 PM, Mike Banon wrote:
I've just added a "Recently tested mainboards:" section to the end of https://piratenpad.de/p/coreboot4.10-release-checklist . I think its' existence could encourage the people to submit a board status report for their board, to increase its' visibility and attract more potential users/developers who'll read these release notes at some opensource-dedicated websites and may become interested at coreboot project. This section includes 6 laptops and 2 desktops for which the board status reports have been submitted during May and the beginning of June. Luckily 4.10 release is not there yet, so the people still have some time to submit a fresh board status for their board and then it could be included to this list.
Also, regarding the significant changes: " ### Tianocore UEFI integrated as payload " . I hope it doesn't mean that Tianocore will become the default payload, since there are ideological/technical reasons against this ( I think there's a significant overlap between the groups of people who love / interested in coreboot and hate UEFI )
Recently tested mainboards: --------------------------- * Lenovo Ideapad G505S * Lenovo Thinkpad T400 * Lenovo Thinkpad T430 * Lenovo Thinkpad T430s baseboard * Lenovo Thinkpad X131e Chromebook * Lenovo Thinkpad X230 * Gigabyte GA-B75M-D3H * Asrock E350M1
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 11:17 PM Patrick Georgi via coreboot <coreboot@coreboot.org> wrote:
Hi everybody,
with this mail I'm officially starting the 4.10 release process. As per the first step of our checklist (Documentation/releases/checklist.md), I hereby announce the intent to release coreboot 4.10 in about 2 weeks. I'm aiming for May 28th to avoid releasing into the weekend or on Memorial Day in the US, but I'll likely lock down the commit we'll designate 4.10 during those days to give some room for testing.
I created a copy of the checklist on https://piratenpad.de/p/coreboot4.10-release-checklist, also including the current state of the 4.10 release notes.
Please test the boards you have around and provide fixes, please be careful with intrusive changes (and maybe postpone them until after the release) and please update the release notes (Documentation/releases/coreboot-4.10-relnotes.md or near the bottom of the etherpad doc, I'll carry them over into our git repo then).
As promised with the 4.9 release there won't be deprecations after 4.10. However we need to finalize our set of deprecations we want to announce with 4.10 that will happen after the 4.11 release (those also belong in the release notes).
Regards, Patrick -- Google Germany GmbH, ABC-Str. 19, 20354 Hamburg Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891, Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg Geschäftsführer: Paul Manicle, Halimah DeLaine Prado _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-leave@coreboot.org
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
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 1:27 PM Mike Banon <mikebdp2@gmail.com> wrote:
Also, regarding the significant changes: " ### Tianocore UEFI integrated as payload " . I hope it doesn't mean that Tianocore will become the default payload, since there are ideological/technical reasons against this ( I think there's a significant overlap between the groups of people who love / interested in coreboot and hate UEFI )
the change could be reworded better I think: instead of the stable tag for Tianocore being pulled from the upstream edk2 github repo and a series of patches applied, it's now pulled directly from my fork/repo, which is actually functional on most (x86_64) devices. A few tweaks (like customizable boot splash) were added as well. there is no change to the default payload, only to the defaults for Tianocore
Tianocore master branch build from edk2 will break, but that had been quite some time. Stable branch is working fine though. On Mon, Jun 3, 2019, 3:28 AM Matt DeVillier <matt.devillier@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 1:27 PM Mike Banon <mikebdp2@gmail.com> wrote:
Also, regarding the significant changes: " ### Tianocore UEFI integrated as payload " . I hope it doesn't mean that Tianocore will become the default payload, since there are ideological/technical reasons against this ( I think there's a significant overlap between the groups of people who love / interested in coreboot and hate UEFI )
the change could be reworded better I think: instead of the stable tag for Tianocore being pulled from the upstream edk2 github repo and a series of patches applied, it's now pulled directly from my fork/repo, which is actually functional on most (x86_64) devices. A few tweaks (like customizable boot splash) were added as well.
there is no change to the default payload, only to the defaults for Tianocore _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-leave@coreboot.org
there is no "stable" branch for upstream edk2 though. Previously, coreboot used an arbitrary commit as stable, and applied ~7 patches on top if it to make it functional. Even the UDK201x branches don't boot without patches On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 3:30 PM Lance Zhao <lance.zhao@gmail.com> wrote:
Tianocore master branch build from edk2 will break, but that had been quite some time. Stable branch is working fine though.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019, 3:28 AM Matt DeVillier <matt.devillier@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 1:27 PM Mike Banon <mikebdp2@gmail.com> wrote:
Also, regarding the significant changes: " ### Tianocore UEFI integrated as payload " . I hope it doesn't mean that Tianocore will become the default payload, since there are ideological/technical reasons against this ( I think there's a significant overlap between the groups of people who love / interested in coreboot and hate UEFI )
the change could be reworded better I think: instead of the stable tag for Tianocore being pulled from the upstream edk2 github repo and a series of patches applied, it's now pulled directly from my fork/repo, which is actually functional on most (x86_64) devices. A few tweaks (like customizable boot splash) were added as well.
there is no change to the default payload, only to the defaults for Tianocore _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-leave@coreboot.org
If the upstream edk2 is so bad - have you tried to upstream your set of patches? It is good that your personal fork/repo is stable, but inevitably it will always lag behind the upstream, not benefiting from some new features and bugfixes. Same reason why I didn't want to fork a coreboot despite having a big set of unofficial patches , instead trying to upstream them when I have some free time. On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 11:41 PM Matt DeVillier <matt.devillier@gmail.com> wrote:
there is no "stable" branch for upstream edk2 though. Previously, coreboot used an arbitrary commit as stable, and applied ~7 patches on top if it to make it functional. Even the UDK201x branches don't boot without patches
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 3:30 PM Lance Zhao <lance.zhao@gmail.com> wrote:
Tianocore master branch build from edk2 will break, but that had been quite some time. Stable branch is working fine though.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019, 3:28 AM Matt DeVillier <matt.devillier@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 1:27 PM Mike Banon <mikebdp2@gmail.com> wrote:
Also, regarding the significant changes: " ### Tianocore UEFI integrated as payload " . I hope it doesn't mean that Tianocore will become the default payload, since there are ideological/technical reasons against this ( I think there's a significant overlap between the groups of people who love / interested in coreboot and hate UEFI )
the change could be reworded better I think: instead of the stable tag for Tianocore being pulled from the upstream edk2 github repo and a series of patches applied, it's now pulled directly from my fork/repo, which is actually functional on most (x86_64) devices. A few tweaks (like customizable boot splash) were added as well.
there is no change to the default payload, only to the defaults for Tianocore _______________________________________________ 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
Just noticed that someone included i.e. some Purism Librem devices to a " Recently tested mainboards: " section - but, when I check https://review.coreboot.org/cgit/board-status.git/log/purism , the latest board status for Purism happened even before 4.9 ! And without a recent enough _public_ "board status" report - containing the important info about your build and its' complete configuration - I don't think we could include them to a "recently tested" list, since the other users won't have a chance to reproduce your build by using your configuration. Same question regarding some other of these additions, so removing them from a " Recently tested mainboards: " list, but of course they could be re-added if someone will submit a board_status reports from them. We would like to encourage the board status reporting, and relying on the word of users ( "I tested X board and it worked" ) would not help us to collect the known good configs at our coreboot/board_status repository. To submit a board status report for your board, please run a ./coreboot/util/board_status/board_status.sh script on it. Removed: * Purism Librem 13 v1 * Purism Librem 15 v2 * Purism Librem 13 v2/v3 * Purism Librem 15 v3 * Purism Librem 13 v4 * Purism Librem 15 v4 * Samsung Chromebook 3 (google/celes) * Acer Chromebook R11 (google/cyan) * Google Chromebook Pixel 2013 (google/link) * Toshiba Chromebook 2 (2014) (google/swanky) * Dell Chromebook 13 7310 (google/lulu) * Dell Inspiron Chromebook 14 (google/nami) * Acer Chromebook 14 (google/edgar) * HP Chromebook 13 G1 (google/chell) * Asus Chromebox CN60 (google/panther) * Asus Chromebox CN62 (google/guado) * Asus Chromebox CN65 (google/fizz) Added: (just saw two new reports by Michał Żygowski here - https://review.coreboot.org/cgit/board-status.git/ ) PC Engines APU1 PC Engines APU2 New version: Recently tested mainboards: --------------------------- * Lenovo Ideapad G505S * Lenovo Thinkpad T400 * Lenovo ThinkPad T420 * Lenovo Thinkpad T430 * Lenovo Thinkpad T430s baseboard * Lenovo Thinkpad T530 baseboard * Lenovo Thinkpad X131e Chromebook (Google Stout) * Lenovo ThinkPad X200 * Lenovo Thinkpad X220 * Lenovo Thinkpad X230 * Gigabyte GA-B75M-D3H * Asrock E350M1 * PC Engines APU1 * PC Engines APU2 On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 4:55 PM Mike Banon <mikebdp2@gmail.com> wrote:
If the upstream edk2 is so bad - have you tried to upstream your set of patches? It is good that your personal fork/repo is stable, but inevitably it will always lag behind the upstream, not benefiting from some new features and bugfixes. Same reason why I didn't want to fork a coreboot despite having a big set of unofficial patches , instead trying to upstream them when I have some free time.
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 11:41 PM Matt DeVillier <matt.devillier@gmail.com> wrote:
there is no "stable" branch for upstream edk2 though. Previously, coreboot used an arbitrary commit as stable, and applied ~7 patches on top if it to make it functional. Even the UDK201x branches don't boot without patches
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 3:30 PM Lance Zhao <lance.zhao@gmail.com> wrote:
Tianocore master branch build from edk2 will break, but that had been quite some time. Stable branch is working fine though.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019, 3:28 AM Matt DeVillier <matt.devillier@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 1:27 PM Mike Banon <mikebdp2@gmail.com> wrote:
Also, regarding the significant changes: " ### Tianocore UEFI integrated as payload " . I hope it doesn't mean that Tianocore will become the default payload, since there are ideological/technical reasons against this ( I think there's a significant overlap between the groups of people who love / interested in coreboot and hate UEFI )
the change could be reworded better I think: instead of the stable tag for Tianocore being pulled from the upstream edk2 github repo and a series of patches applied, it's now pulled directly from my fork/repo, which is actually functional on most (x86_64) devices. A few tweaks (like customizable boot splash) were added as well.
there is no change to the default payload, only to the defaults for Tianocore _______________________________________________ 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
I added those devices, all of which I have in my possession and were tested over the weekend with TOT. I'd not yet had a chance to upload board status for them, but figured knowing a good range of platforms/boards were known working just prior to release was useful (and the purpose of the list) On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 9:14 AM Mike Banon <mikebdp2@gmail.com> wrote:
Just noticed that someone included i.e. some Purism Librem devices to a " Recently tested mainboards: " section - but, when I check https://review.coreboot.org/cgit/board-status.git/log/purism , the latest board status for Purism happened even before 4.9 ! And without a recent enough _public_ "board status" report - containing the important info about your build and its' complete configuration - I don't think we could include them to a "recently tested" list, since the other users won't have a chance to reproduce your build by using your configuration. Same question regarding some other of these additions, so removing them from a " Recently tested mainboards: " list, but of course they could be re-added if someone will submit a board_status reports from them.
We would like to encourage the board status reporting, and relying on the word of users ( "I tested X board and it worked" ) would not help us to collect the known good configs at our coreboot/board_status repository.
To submit a board status report for your board, please run a ./coreboot/util/board_status/board_status.sh script on it.
Removed: * Purism Librem 13 v1 * Purism Librem 15 v2 * Purism Librem 13 v2/v3 * Purism Librem 15 v3 * Purism Librem 13 v4 * Purism Librem 15 v4 * Samsung Chromebook 3 (google/celes) * Acer Chromebook R11 (google/cyan) * Google Chromebook Pixel 2013 (google/link) * Toshiba Chromebook 2 (2014) (google/swanky) * Dell Chromebook 13 7310 (google/lulu) * Dell Inspiron Chromebook 14 (google/nami) * Acer Chromebook 14 (google/edgar) * HP Chromebook 13 G1 (google/chell) * Asus Chromebox CN60 (google/panther) * Asus Chromebox CN62 (google/guado) * Asus Chromebox CN65 (google/fizz)
Okay, I returned your boards but added a note that "no board_status report yet". Hopefully you could submit them in the near future, at least for the archival purposes. And there's a similar question to someone else who added "Asus P8H61-M Pro" despite that the latest report for it is one year ago.
The default config should always be a known good config, unless the board isn't well maintained. Needing a specific "good config" is a sign of unattended bugs. Not necessarily: it could be that a default config is bootable for some board but still somehow inferior. For example, it may boot but without showing anything on a display, because no VGABIOS specified or provided. Or i.e. it may be hard to convince the people to enable some config by default despite it being useful, e.g. a coreinfo secondary payload. So board_status report is a great way to promote your nice config, and hopefully the people would share them more
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 5:28 PM Matt DeVillier <matt.devillier@gmail.com> wrote:
I added those devices, all of which I have in my possession and were tested over the weekend with TOT. I'd not yet had a chance to upload board status for them, but figured knowing a good range of platforms/boards were known working just prior to release was useful (and the purpose of the list)
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 9:14 AM Mike Banon <mikebdp2@gmail.com> wrote:
Just noticed that someone included i.e. some Purism Librem devices to a " Recently tested mainboards: " section - but, when I check https://review.coreboot.org/cgit/board-status.git/log/purism , the latest board status for Purism happened even before 4.9 ! And without a recent enough _public_ "board status" report - containing the important info about your build and its' complete configuration - I don't think we could include them to a "recently tested" list, since the other users won't have a chance to reproduce your build by using your configuration. Same question regarding some other of these additions, so removing them from a " Recently tested mainboards: " list, but of course they could be re-added if someone will submit a board_status reports from them.
We would like to encourage the board status reporting, and relying on the word of users ( "I tested X board and it worked" ) would not help us to collect the known good configs at our coreboot/board_status repository.
To submit a board status report for your board, please run a ./coreboot/util/board_status/board_status.sh script on it.
Removed: * Purism Librem 13 v1 * Purism Librem 15 v2 * Purism Librem 13 v2/v3 * Purism Librem 15 v3 * Purism Librem 13 v4 * Purism Librem 15 v4 * Samsung Chromebook 3 (google/celes) * Acer Chromebook R11 (google/cyan) * Google Chromebook Pixel 2013 (google/link) * Toshiba Chromebook 2 (2014) (google/swanky) * Dell Chromebook 13 7310 (google/lulu) * Dell Inspiron Chromebook 14 (google/nami) * Acer Chromebook 14 (google/edgar) * HP Chromebook 13 G1 (google/chell) * Asus Chromebox CN60 (google/panther) * Asus Chromebox CN62 (google/guado) * Asus Chromebox CN65 (google/fizz)
On 03.06.19 16:13, Mike Banon wrote:
Just noticed that someone included i.e. some Purism Librem devices to a " Recently tested mainboards: " section - but, when I check https://review.coreboot.org/cgit/board-status.git/log/purism , the latest board status for Purism happened even before 4.9 ! And without a recent enough _public_ "board status" report - containing the important info about your build and its' complete configuration - I don't think we could include them to a "recently tested" list
I have to object. That the boards were tested with a recent revision around the release is still much valuable information.
We would like to encourage the board status reporting, and relying on the word of users ( "I tested X board and it worked" ) would not help us to collect the known good configs at our coreboot/board_status repository.
The default config should always be a known good config, unless the board isn't well maintained. Needing a specific "good config" is a sign of unattended bugs.
Removed: [...]
Please revert. Nico
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:55 AM Mike Banon <mikebdp2@gmail.com> wrote:
If the upstream edk2 is so bad - have you tried to upstream your set of patches? It is good that your personal fork/repo is stable, but inevitably it will always lag behind the upstream, not benefiting from some new features and bugfixes. Same reason why I didn't want to fork a coreboot despite having a big set of unofficial patches , instead trying to upstream them when I have some free time.
given that CorebootPayloadPackage has been removed and replaced with UefiPayloadPackage, there's no point in doing so. If UefiPayloadPkg is functional as-is, then we can certainly switch over to it, but my understanding is that it is not. And I haven't had time to investigate/test myself.
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 11:41 PM Matt DeVillier <matt.devillier@gmail.com> wrote:
there is no "stable" branch for upstream edk2 though. Previously,
coreboot used an arbitrary commit as stable, and applied ~7 patches on top if it to make it functional. Even the UDK201x branches don't boot without patches
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 3:30 PM Lance Zhao <lance.zhao@gmail.com> wrote:
Tianocore master branch build from edk2 will break, but that had been
quite some time. Stable branch is working fine though.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019, 3:28 AM Matt DeVillier <matt.devillier@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 1:27 PM Mike Banon <mikebdp2@gmail.com> wrote:
Also, regarding the significant changes: " ### Tianocore UEFI integrated as payload " . I hope it doesn't mean that Tianocore will become the default payload, since there are ideological/technical reasons against this ( I think there's a significant overlap between the groups of people who love / interested in coreboot and hate UEFI )
the change could be reworded better I think: instead of the stable tag
for Tianocore being pulled from the upstream edk2 github repo and a series of patches applied, it's now pulled directly from my fork/repo, which is actually functional on most (x86_64) devices. A few tweaks (like customizable boot splash) were added as well.
there is no change to the default payload, only to the defaults for
Tianocore
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (6)
-
Evgeny Zinoviev -
Lance Zhao -
Matt DeVillier -
Mike Banon -
Nico Huber -
Patrick Georgi