Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD Provides Coreboot Support For Fusion

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • AMD Provides Coreboot Support For Fusion

    Phoronix: AMD Provides Coreboot Support For Fusion

    AMD has been quite friendly towards the Coreboot project (what used to be LinuxBIOS) with releasing support for new chipsets and other engineering assistance. This support has not dried up at all but has only expanded with AMD's recent release of Coreboot code to support the Embedded G-Series Fusion processor...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=OTE2Nw

  • #2
    AMD deserves *major* kudos for this.

    Comment


    • #3
      I had meant to read up more on that when I noticed it several days back.
      The blogs are an interesting read - briefly explains why making it open source is a good idea, and how they're using it to increase the presence of Fusion in the embedded market.
      Keep up the good work AMD.

      Comment


      • #4
        Way to go, AMD! I only wished they expanded this initiative to all of their chipsets, because I've heard that Coreboot is capable of some serious ass kicking and can't wait to get my hands on it.

        Comment


        • #5
          oems

          why does no oem provide a mainboard with coreboot? Do they include spy routines in bioses or what reason is there to pay money to a company to get a crappy bios? Coreboot can boot windows so whats the problem?

          They could not only cut down their costs (bios-licenses), they could advertise the features, instant-web or something like that. So explain it to me? Is it spy-routines or what do they hide or get when they not include such coreboot.

          Comment


          • #6
            could someone explain the benefits of replacing the standard BIOS with Coreboot apart from the Free Software, Open Source stuff and being able to load an OS without a boot loader.






            PS. this things begs for an xzibit "yo dawg we heard you like linux so we put linux on your bios so you can linux even before you linux" type meme but yeah

            Comment


            • #7
              The OEMS don't do the development themselves, instead they license it out to other people. Especially with laptops and other devices the OEMs rarely do any significant manufacturing themselves. They use ODMs, which are the major manufacturers. Mostly out of China, Korea, and Taiwan.

              The ODMs manufacture the devices themselves, but they don't usually do much software development themselves. They have third parties do it...

              As you can see it's all really complicated. They continue to use BIOSes, probably because it's cheaper then developing something new from scratch and that you need a BIOS for Windows XP compatibility. (For newer versions of Windows you can use EFI)

              Stuff like this takes a long time to change.

              As time progresses and if people see a significant benefit for CoreBoot then manufacturers will begin to support it on their own.

              With Coreboot you should be able to get XP compatibility through things like SeaBIOS. Just like you do with virtual machines on KVM....

              Also a interesting use case for building Linux directly into the hardware is having virtualization hypervisor built-in through the use of KVM and related technologies.

              Comment


              • #8
                What about the variant of Fusion that would go into low to mid-range desktops and laptops? Are those (going to be) supported with Coreboot as well?

                Ideally, for my next system build, I'd like to leave Intel behind entirely and go with the Phenom II X6 1100T, along with my current HD5970 (hanging on to it until at least HD7000 series is out for a few months). Open source graphics drivers + coreboot bios would basically give me a top to bottom free software stack....... oh, unless you count the kernel firmware for the radeon GPUs. Darn.

                I think I'll look for a Fusion laptop, too, ideally with just a little more punch than an Intel GMA, without being as large and power hungry as a GeForce Go.

                Here's to hoping they'll both have Coreboot support by the time I'm ready to buy.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by 89c51 View Post
                  could someone explain the benefits of replacing the standard BIOS with Coreboot apart from the Free Software, Open Source stuff and being able to load an OS without a boot loader.






                  PS. this things begs for an xzibit "yo dawg we heard you like linux so we put linux on your bios so you can linux even before you linux" type meme but yeah
                  This is question I had too. Don't really understand, but why would someone want to try to render their computer be unbootable, just to have open source version of thing, that probably works in the first place. Not like there is ANY forcable agreement upon user or anything like that. The only reason why would anyone want it - is original BIOS being so bad, that it affects performance/affects stability.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Potential

                    Originally posted by drag View Post
                    The OEMS don't do the development themselves, instead they license it out to other people. Especially with laptops and other devices the OEMs rarely do any significant manufacturing themselves. They use ODMs, which are the major manufacturers. Mostly out of China, Korea, and Taiwan.
                    ....
                    Also a interesting use case for building Linux directly into the hardware is having virtualization hypervisor built-in through the use of KVM and related technologies.
                    See, this is the potential Linux OEMs have. System76 should have jumped on this YEARS ago. They need to get on this now. There is to much potential for awesome to pass up here. They could make a much better firmware interface than AMI or PROM or whatever if they want. With their own configuration of the pre-boot environment they could make out of band interfaces for desktop, they could bring a lot of cool innovations to the desktop market by having creative control over the pre-boot, boot and OS experience.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by dimko View Post
                      This is question I had too. Don't really understand, but why would someone want to try to render their computer be unbootable, just to have open source version of thing, that probably works in the first place. Not like there is ANY forcable agreement upon user or anything like that. The only reason why would anyone want it - is original BIOS being so bad, that it affects performance/affects stability.
                      Read the blog posts, they explain the people who would be most interested in this, and why.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I get it

                        Sorry, a bit too sleepy... Cutting costs for producer is major factor i guess.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          but there's more

                          Originally posted by dimko View Post
                          Sorry, a bit too sleepy... Cutting costs for producer is major factor i guess.
                          Nevermind the AWESOME stuff the OEMs can do with this awesome stuff. in bios hypervisors, lack of legacy code (like stuff that makes windows boot faster) in bios pacman or self updating bios (from a trusted source). imagine that instead of discovering a bios bug years later when some PSI card doesn't work or hanging at boot (thats an HP and a Sun example respectively) because theres no notification of this.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            At first I was kind of worried by the many mentions of AGESA, but upon further inspection it looks like this is because they've actually done a drop of AGESA code into the coreboot tree, not because they're require you to get it through other channels. This might just turn out to actually be pretty cool. I'm even more tempted to grab a Zacate board now (it looks like the Asus ones have a socketed flash chip...).

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The only issue that I really have with Coreboot is that most motherboards out there carry enough proprietary motherboard add ons that you end up usually loosing a lot of "special" functionality that those motherboards support (examples like, off south bridge sata connectors, wireless, thermal monitoring, fan speed control, etc). That last real manufacturer that made a lot of their motherboards close to reference designs was Abit. Asus, Gigabyte, MSI, etc fill their motherboards up with so much "non-reference" crap that you end up paying more then needed for features that are not supported with Coreboot.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X