Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 41

Thread: AMD Provides Coreboot Support For Fusion

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    912

    Default

    Quote 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.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    268

    Default I get it

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

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    72

    Default but there's more

    Quote 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.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    772

    Default

    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...).

  5. #15
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,582

    Default

    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.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    772

    Default

    pseudo-edit: it looks like the cheap ASRock Mini-ITX one has a socketed BIOS too (missed it the first time because the Newegg pic has a big fat sticker on top of it).

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    772

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    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.
    Couldn't a kboot payload or similar handle a lot of that, though? I thought part of the point of "coreboot" as opposed to "LinuxBIOS" was to only integrate support for the "core" hardware needed to have a sane system to hand off to a payload (RAM initialized, CPU/MMU/etc. in a useful state, etc.).

  8. #18
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ex-Cyber View Post
    Couldn't a kboot payload or similar handle a lot of that, though?
    Do you really want to rely on items like thermal management that depends on a storage device not failing?

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    772

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Do you really want to rely on items like thermal management that depends on a storage device not failing?
    If the storage device is the same flash chip that coreboot itself is running from, why not?

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    517

    Default

    I really don't understand he negative comments. I don't run any proprietary operating system. This means, in most cases, that I can't update a BIOS. Also, the same way I trust Open Source for my operating systems, I would happily embrace it for my hardware.

    But I agree that risking bricking your mobo is a bit extreme, how do you bootstrap a dead mobo? This should really be an OEM install.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •