[coreboot] [PATCH]Allow components to add files to CBFS

[Joseph Smith]

On 12/15/2010 05:23 PM, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
> * Scott Duplichan<scott at notabs.org>  [101215 22:33]:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: coreboot-bounces at coreboot.org [mailto:coreboot-bounces at coreboot.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Georgi
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 03:08 PM
>> To: coreboot at coreboot.org
>> Subject: Re: [coreboot] [PATCH]Allow components to add files to CBFS
>>
>> ]That there aren't any binary components in the tree is simply for the fact
>> ]that they're not redistributable: We usually scrap them from vendor BIOSes,
>> ]and they're not separately available.
>>
>> Thanks for explaining. I always wondered why uma video option roms were
>> not included with coreboot. Microcode patches should be put into this
>> same category. The supplied AMD patches are not the latest, if I am not
>> mistaken. It wouldn't be hard to automate the process of extracting AMD
>> patches from a BIOS binary.
>
> Actually we can redistribute Intel and VIA option ROMs. I asked ATI and
> then AMD a lot of times, but I never got a definite written answer on
> whether they're no-lawyer-involved happy with us putting up copies of
> their oproms. If they were, I'd gladly add their images to our oprom
> repository on coreboot.org.
>
> Scott, can you (or Marc?) get anyone at AMD to make a binding statement?
> It would help the coreboot user experience a lot.
>
> Also, where do we officially get amd microcode files? I don't think
> extracting them from some UEFI image is the way to go. Again, for Intel
> it's fairly easy. Can we get AMD to catch up here?
>
Yes most of the Intel oproms (vga bios blobs) are publicly downloadable 
from the Intel website (just look for the developer drivers). I think we 
should have a section in the tree for the blobs. I think the only 
discrepancy Intel has is they do not want hacked/cracked copy's of their 
blobs re-distributable...


-- 
Thanks,
Joseph Smith
Set-Top-Linux
www.settoplinux.org