[LinuxBIOS] Names names.. [was: Linux vs. Open?]
Ronald G. Minnich
rminnich at lanl.gov
Tue Mar 15 16:46:13 CET 2005
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Jonathan Morton wrote:
> If I understand right, the "bootstrap" section (presently called
> LinuxBIOS) is essentially a stripped-down Linux kernel with some rather
> more in-depth device initialisation capabilities. Such a configuration
> does make sense, and would allow very flexible boot device support.
such was the plan.
But the small flash size problem changed the plan
> If this is true, then as a kernel it *does* have callbacks, and can
> justifiably be termed a BIOS in the strict sense of the word, even if it
> doesn't provide the legacy "IBM compatible" calls to run M$-DOS
> directly. Thus the name "LinuxBIOS" should probably stick.
yeah. I still think long term I want linux in there. The Intel EFI guys
beat up on me a lot about this -- "LinuxBIOS has no API".
My response was, "of course it does -- it's called the linux system call
But it's harder to make that case when there's no linux in there ...
> Eventually, even Intel will have to admit it's time to ditch the old,
> frequently buggy and restrictive AMI and Award BIOS structures.
> Goodness, BIOSes of both kinds have caused havoc when faced with a HD
> slightly larger than was expected at the time of manufacture, multiple
> times in recent history. The onus has largely been on the HD
> manufacturers to work around the BIOS bugs. That's just wrong.
Intel has admitted that, long ago; it's just that their solution is
utterly proprietary, which runs against the grain. At least my grain.
More information about the coreboot