[coreboot] Proposal - Fast Boot UEFI addendum to Coreboot

[Zoran Stojsavljevic]

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 at 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 at 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 at google.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 2016-02-14 8:32 GMT+01:00 Zoran Stojsavljevic <
>>> zoran.stojsavljevic at 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
>>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/attachments/20160214/1d4562c0/attachment.html>