[coreboot] [PATCH]Allow components to add files to CBFS
joe at settoplinux.org
Thu Dec 16 16:06:22 CET 2010
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
More information about the coreboot