[coreboot] Re: [RFC] Pre-Memory Sign-of-Life using Intel uGOP

+ Subrata On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 at 15:35, Nico Huber wrote: > Hi Jeremy, > > On 14.08.23 22:52, Compostella, Jeremy wrote: > > We propose to take advantage of a proprietary driver Intel already > supports, validates and includes in FSP silicon: the Intel Graphics PEIM > (Pre-EFI Initialization Mod

[coreboot] Re: [RFC] Pre-Memory Sign-of-Life using Intel uGOP

Hi > We propose to take advantage of a proprietary driver Intel already supports, validates and includes in FSP silicon: the Intel Graphics PEIM (Pre-EFI Initialization Module) driver also known as the GOP (Graphical Output Protocol) driver. Usually the reasoning for using a binary is because the

[coreboot] Re: [RFC] Pre-Memory Sign-of-Life using Intel uGOP

Hi Arthur, On 23.08.23 10:41, Arthur Heymans wrote: > We already have code similar to ReportStatusCode can you point me to the code integrating this? I could find this identifier only in vendorcode/ headers. Is it for debugging? > and ramstage PPI so maybe > it's not a problem. I thought this w

[coreboot] Re: [RFC] Pre-Memory Sign-of-Life using Intel uGOP

>> ReportStatusCode() to report debug information which coreboot prints using printk. > can you point me to the code integrating this? I could find this identifier only in vendorcode/ headers. Is it for debugging? I meant code calling back to the coreboot console in general for debugging. A few ex

[coreboot] Re: [RFC] Pre-Memory Sign-of-Life using Intel uGOP

On 23.08.23 11:32, Arthur Heymans wrote: >>> ReportStatusCode() to report debug information which coreboot prints > using printk. >> can you point me to the code integrating this? I could find this > identifier only in vendorcode/ headers. Is it for debugging? > > I meant code calling back to the c

[coreboot] 2023-08-23 - coreboot Leadership meeting minutes

# 2023-08-23 - coreboot Leadership # Attendees: * ChrisW, MartinR, SubrataB, WernerZ, JonathanH, PatrickG, PaulP, JeremyC, KapilP, AnilK, HannahW, JasonG, RajA, FelixH, SimonG, JayT, JuliusW, ShelleyC, Nico, DavidH, MaximilianB, PratikkumarP, JonM, VincentZ, StefanR, MarshallD, Arthu

[coreboot] Re: [RFC] Pre-Memory Sign-of-Life using Intel uGOP

> Hi Jeremy, > > Thanks for posting this. I know that you're planning on doing a > presentation about this in this week's leadership meeting and look > forward to that.  > > A few questions: > 1) How does the uGOP driver work with libgfxinit? Does using uGOP mean

[coreboot] Re: [RFC] Pre-Memory Sign-of-Life using Intel uGOP

Hi Arthur, >> supports, validates and includes in FSP silicon: the Intel Graphics PEIM >> (Pre-EFI Initialization Module) driver also known as the GOP (Graphical >> Output Protocol) driver. > Usually the reasoning for using a binary is because the hardware cannot be > publicly documented (e.g. DRA

[coreboot] Re: [RFC] Pre-Memory Sign-of-Life using Intel uGOP

Hi Jeremy, On 24.08.23 00:24, Compostella, Jeremy wrote: >> 3) Is there a reason that the uGOP driver can't be open sourced, at >> least once the Graphics Programmer Reference Manuals are released? > > We cannot open-source the code for platforms for which the PRMs are > not publicly published and

[coreboot] Re: 2023-08-23 - coreboot Leadership meeting minutes

We understand the hesitation to introduce one more binary blob in Coreboot. We are not opposed to open sourcing (we did support libgfxinit for our previous platforms). The Meteor Lake platform is at the final stages of development and validation, so Intel prefers to proceed with the current path

[coreboot] Re: [RFC] Pre-Memory Sign-of-Life using Intel uGOP

Hi Jeremy and all the rest of the Intel folk who took the time to come to the coreboot meeting today. I wasn't thrilled with the message you were there to present, but I was happy to see all who attended. I may be incorrect, but I assume that Google has been talking with Intel about displaying