[coreboot] coreboot BIOSisms

Kevin O'Connor kevin at koconnor.net
Wed Jun 11 06:22:32 CEST 2008

Hi Peter!

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 04:17:49AM +0200, Peter Stuge wrote:
> By creating a good intermediate format, we will eventually be able to
> replace many if not all BIOSisms with something better documented,
> maybe even something simpler and certainly something nicer.

This is why I'm "torn" on the issue.  I can see the value in a good
intermediate format - one that would allow coreboot to easily export a
wide variety of static and dynamic data.

Unfortunately, I don't believe there is a good intermediate format
available today.  LAR looks nice, but it only seems useful for large
blobs and it isn't supported by v2.  The coreboot table is effectively
the same technology as the binary ACPI/pir/mptable/smbios tables.  I
don't see a compelling advantage to defining new coreboot tables over
using existing standard tables.

> > why translate from "coreboot->coreboot table->legacybios->smbios
> > table" when we can just go from "coreboot->smbios table"?
> Staying true to the design that coreboot is not a BIOS, but something
> better.

I'm not really sure what that means.  Coreboot doing something
different from a "BIOS" does not inherently mean that coreboot is
better.  So, if there is an intermediate format with compelling
features - then I'm all for it.  But, if a new intermediate format is
just different or only slightly better - then I'd recommend using the
existing standards.

> > Adding an additional program in between seems to make things more
> > complicated.
> Short term, yes - slightly more complicated but much better structured.
> Long term the additional program dies.

I agree 100% that if acpi/pir/mptable/smbios table generation is added
to coreboot that it should be optional.


More information about the coreboot mailing list