[coreboot] EFI strategy

Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net
Sat Feb 9 23:16:56 CET 2008


On 09.02.2008 22:34, Brendan Trotter wrote:
> On 2/9/08, ron minnich <rminnich at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> I think it would be interesting to have a buildrom option for 'build EFI'.
>>     
>
> It'd be much more interesting to have no buildrom options for payloads
> at all. Let the user install their own payload *after* coreboot is
> installed.
>   

I think you may be confusing buildrom with coreboot. Buildrom is there
to create a ROM with payload. The normal coreboot build process doesn't
really care about a payload.

> Why? So motherboard manufactures for a wide range of hardware (e.g.
> embedded, desktop and server) can install coreboot as default on all
> motherboards.
>
> It's better for the motherboard manufacturer, who would be freed from
> the hassle of deciding whether to use PC BIOS or EFI or GRUB or
> whatever.
>
> It's also better for the end-user, who isn't stuck with the
> manufacturers choice of payload and doesn't need to get their hands
> dirty with compilers and compile-time configuration. If it's done
> right, a complete moron could safely install a pre-built payload of
> any description on top of pre-installed coreboot, without worrying
> about bricking their hardware (or stuffing up their warranty).
>   

It is surprisingly hard to get this right with limited flash sizes of today.

> There's only 2 things coreboot is missing. The first is an inbuilt
> "update payload from <device>" utility to make installing (and
> reinstalling) a payload after coreboot is installed incredibly simple
> (e.g. something that can easily be used by end-users who have never
> seen a compiler in their life and never will).
>   

This is impossible in the general case and hard in some special cases.

> The second thing that's missing is a "payload specification" (with
> backward compatability) that allows payloads to be written by anyone
> that always work reliably without any compatability problems. Without
> this, coreboot is too volatile for any sane third party to rely on.
>   

Ah, the same point you already stated earlier and which was already
answered.

Regards,
Carl-Daniel

-- 
http://www.hailfinger.org/





More information about the coreboot mailing list