4 ms·
> Its basically instant boot the same way as uboot is We regularly run into issues where coreboot boots so fast that the peripherals can't catch up and we're t
by pgeorgi 7y ago
> Its basically instant boot the same way as uboot is
We regularly run into issues where coreboot boots so fast that the peripherals can't catch up and we're the first to notice. So yes, our boot process is pretty quick compared to other stuff.
> it also supports the secure boot standard, capsule update, and most of what one expects out of a modern BIOS.
Absence of runtime services (while still doing a secure boot flow and firmware updates). UEFI doesn't do that.
Also, coreboot provides these things since ~2005 (the verified boot flow was a bit late) while EDK2 started out around 2007 and only gained secure boot in 2012.
From my perspective EDK2 is the also-ran.
- StillBored 7y agoThe edk2 project is a branch of edk, which itself is a branch. According to their about page the original tiano project was started in 2004 as the opensource fork of intel's internal uefi implementation. This did create some problems early on, but the code is basically BSD licensed at this point since AFAIK, they are dropping the bsd+patent restriction. So technically you could probably work on it without ever looking at the UEFI specifications these days as much of the platform code/etc is actually in a different repo. Given that its mostly a plugin API that isn't really a problem, its a matter of flipping a few switches in the config files to enable functionality on top of whatever platform init is necessary. https://www.tianocore.org/ https://www.tianocore.org/
- pgeorgi 7y agoI might be able to work on it (and indeed, I sometimes do), but your argument was in favor of implementing a spec. Any change that modifies the resulting binary might have my copy deviate from the spec and I have little way of knowing. How useful is that when trying to "implement PEI"?