Fine, but that's not what I replied to. Someone said they forgot the "B" in BIOS (with uEFI), I am saying the BIOS hasn't been close to a basic in a very long time due to the complexities of x86-like systems.
The BIOS was a giant bloated mess before uEFI. uEFI's modular design is a single attempt at keeping it simplier and removing unneeded code.
> UEFI's modular design is a single attempt at keeping it simplier and removing unneeded code.
That's why with the introduction of UEFI, flash parts finally grew in size again? (not that I complain, that's quite useful to burn coreboot + Linux on them, to have a _real_ OS around to drive the boot process)
UEFI is _much_ larger than BIOS, conceptually and in terms of code size.
It's also _much_, _much_ larger than coreboot based solutions implementing the same purpose (my tests indicate that UEFI takes 6 times the LOC over coreboot for a minimized code base that provides a boot menu and the ability to load a signed Linux kernel from disk)
> That's why with the introduction of UEFI, flash parts finally grew in size again?
Assembly programs are typically smaller than ones written in C. No surprise there.
> It's also _much_, _much_ larger than coreboot based solutions implementing the same purpose (my tests indicate that UEFI takes 6 times the LOC over coreboot for a minimized code base that provides a boot menu and the ability to load a signed Linux kernel from disk)
And does 1/6th the amount of "stuff." If you drop a bunch of uEFI features, of course you won't use as much code. Is that controversial? There's a reason CoreBoot is so infrequently used, it doesn't do many things that people take for granted with uEFI.
I disabled all capabilities that weren't required for the task, then killed all source files that weren't required for the build, in both trees. I believe it was a fair comparison.
The BIOS was a giant bloated mess before uEFI. uEFI's modular design is a single attempt at keeping it simplier and removing unneeded code.