1 |
On 06/20/2012 05:09 PM, Greg KH wrote: |
2 |
>> Technical hurdles will likely prevent this unless we an get vendors to |
3 |
>> release documentation. Is there any chance you could contact people at |
4 |
>> Intel requesting programming documentation on their memory controller |
5 |
>> and anything else we would need to write a small OS that we could flash |
6 |
>> in place of UEFI? |
7 |
> |
8 |
> Again, see the response from Peter about what is needed here. That |
9 |
> "anything else" is not trivial. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> But feel free to prove me wrong, I love it when that happens :) |
12 |
> |
13 |
> greg k-h |
14 |
> |
15 |
|
16 |
You must not have read this, where I said that I realized that this is |
17 |
infeasible: |
18 |
|
19 |
On 06/20/2012 04:13 PM, Richard Yao wrote: |
20 |
>> Stop right there. That's just not going to happen, sorry. You aren't |
21 |
>> going to be able to get a user to replace their BIOS, nor should you |
22 |
>> ever want to. You are not going to be able to keep up with the |
23 |
>> hundreds, if not thousands, of different motherboards being introduced |
24 |
>> every month, in order to just get rid of the secure boot option. |
25 |
> |
26 |
> OpenWRT does that with routers and Cyanogenmod does that with phones. It |
27 |
> seems reason for us to offer it as an option to users. With that said, |
28 |
> this probably won't happen. One of the Core Boot developers informed me |
29 |
> of what is involved in setting up the address space and it is infeasible |
30 |
> for us to do. |
31 |
|
32 |
From what I can tell, the Core Boot developers could use that |
33 |
documentation. You yourself said "If there's anything that anyone is |
34 |
thinking I should be doing but seem not to be, please let me know.". Do |
35 |
you have any intention of acting on that? |