Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> 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.


> And does 1/6th the amount of "stuff."

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.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: