On 10/11/19 16:35, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 16:27 +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> On 10/11/19 09:44, Gao, Junhao wrote: >>> Hi David >>> >>> I have found this compiled OVMF-with-csm.fd can support winxp >>> booting up. >>> OVMF-with-csm.fd path: >>> https://www.kraxel.org/repos/jenkins/seabios/seabios.git-csm-1.12.0-33.63.g43f5df7.x86_64.rpm >>> Then could you help to provide me the compile method and base code >>> to reproduce this OVMF-with-csm.fd? >> >> Ah, good point, I should have remembered that Gerd offers a CSM build in >> his repo! >> >> So, you can easily look up the build instructions, in Gerd's SeaBIOS and >> OVMF RPM "spec" files. Check out these git repositories: >> >> https://git.kraxel.org/cgit/jenkins/seabios/ >> https://git.kraxel.org/cgit/jenkins/edk2/ >> >> Specifically: >> >> https://git.kraxel.org/cgit/jenkins/seabios/tree/seabios.git.spec >> https://git.kraxel.org/cgit/jenkins/edk2/tree/edk2.git.spec.template > > Right, thanks. > > Ultimately it's as simple as: > > • Build SeaBIOS with CONFIG_CSM > • Drop the resulting Csm16.bin into OvmfPkg/Csm/Csm16/ in the EDK2 tree > • Build EDK2 with -DCSM_ENABLE > > Someone else mailed me recently to say they'd copied the Csm packages > over from OvmfPkg to Quark and had Windows booting on Galileo boards. > > Hm, I wonder if we should move the CSM support out of OVMF and into > somewhere more generic, since it really is generic and not platform- > specific?
We moved the CSM infrastructure under OvmfPkg because IntelFrameworkPkg / IntelFrameworkModulePkg were slated for removal, and this was how we could salvage the CSM: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1811 We could likely move it out of OVMF, but if the destination is still the edk2 tree -- which I would strongly prefer, as long as we support the CSM at all --, then it will take a new top level directory (CsmPkg, for example). No other package maintainer was willing to maintain the CSM, and even under OvmfPkg, I agreed to it only if you'd assume its reviewership. So now you'd likely have to introduce CsmPkg, and become its sole (or primary) maintainer. I'm 100% OK with that. (Both as OvmfPkg co-maintainer, and as one of the stewards that might have to ACK (I think?...) the creation of another top-level directory). Thanks Laszlo -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#48900): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/48900 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/34476019/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
