This whitepaper provides an overview of the architecture, benefits, and features of the Platform Innovation Framework for Extensible Firmware Interface, a modular, platform-independent architecture for implementating boot and other BIOS functions recently. The Framework, developed by Intel, is driver-based, enabling binary-linking of modules; and it is C-based, clean, scalable, and modular, allowing it to support diverse CPU architecures – such as Intel’s IA-32, Itanium & XScale – within a single source tree.
Overview of Intel’s next-generation BIOS architecture
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Gotta love all the weels that get invented in this industry. Apple and Sun (and I guess others) have been using Open Firmware for some time. It’s an industry standard (IEEE 1275). Why can’t Intel use that? NIH?
It’s an industry standard (IEEE 1275). Why can’t Intel use that?
Cause then Intel couldn’t claim “innovation”
Wait a..
did not read the whitepaper, but
is this similar to OBP?
well, congs!
If Linux BIOS can be made compatible with EFI, then it looks like a big win for Linux BIOS.
Hopefully Intel will support open source BIOS. With Intel’s recent hyper-addiction to DRM, though, perhaps not in our lifetime.
All in all, EFI looks like a solid step forward for PC architecture.
Could “Offers full legacy support” be a reason with 1275 didn’t make it?
A number of successful software and hardware solutions were successful not because of their intrinsic technical value, but because compatibility (forward- or backward-) was a strong part of the product.
It’s possible in the x86 world to use “very old” operating systems on “very recent” hardware, or the opposite (let’s say a current OS on a 10-year-old PC or the opposite). I don’t have the feeling that the same is true in e.g. the 1275-based MacOS world.
because if Apple can get the functionality out of this BIOS replacment, then Apple could use it rather than OpenFirmware and then the problem of special GFX cards etc, would go away!!!
I mean the reason Apple does not use BIOS is because it is junk and OpenFirmware is superior to it, however if this is just as good, Apple can make it easier for its users to swap out parts like GFX cards from ATI and Nvidia.
For the graphics card situation in Mac world to improve, Apple would also need to drop its proprietary ADC system in favor of DVI.
One of the big reasons there are nearly no video cards for Mac is having to make different hardware designs to work on Mac. As the Mac market is so small, for most video card vendors, it just isn’t worth the cost to make a custom video card with the current ADC system.
Apple should switch to it even if it isn’t “just as good”. It will lower the cost of making MACs. I have not upgraded my video card because it cost TWICE as much as the PC version. My god!
umm, ADC is not what makes the cards more expensive, and besides that, ADC is ONLY USED BY APPLE BRANDED DISPLAYS!!!
so ADC has absolutely NOTHING to do with your ability to use a 3rd party LCD screen.
besides that you buy a converter to use an non apple LCD as it is.
stop blowing crap out your mouth.
For the graphics card situation in Mac world to improve, Apple would also need to drop its proprietary ADC system in favor of DVI.
The ADC is a huge plus. The Wintel world needs to adopt it and drop the myriad of DVI connectors. Also USB ports on the monitor needs to become standard quick.
I find it incredibly stupid when I found that the ATX power supply, unlike the Baby AT power supply, doesn’t have a power socket to plug the monitor power cord in. It was convenient.
I saw that on an old AN-UYK computer about 30 years ago.
Apple would be stupid to abandon Open Firmware for this new Intel backed crap.
because if Apple can get the functionality out of this BIOS replacment, then Apple could use it rather than OpenFirmware and then the problem of special GFX cards etc, would go away!!!
Other PPC machines (i.e. Pegasos) take the approach of including a simple x86 emulator allowing you to use standard PC Gfx cards.
care to elaborate?
Hi
“Apple would be stupid to abandon Open Firmware for this new Intel backed crap.”
any reason this is crap. calling everything crap is easy. provide some valid points.
yeah and you take a huge hit with performance.
BTW, you don’t need an X86 emulator, you just need a BIOS emulator.
Anonymous (IP: 61.95.184.—)
&
blah (IP: —.cable.mindspring.com)
You whine about valid points being lacking, but when they’re offerd you whine even harder. OSnews has proven to be an opinion site, and nothing more. You two are terribly good at giving opinions with nothing to back them up, so don’t expect me to constantly be doing any different (although I often do).
Do some reading or something. I don’t just pull opinions out of my ass you know, although I’m sure that’s what you both think.
I read before that there will be the option to logon remotely, be it after a system crash or to setup it without a monitor/card.
I just wonder if having a firmware chip will be less a pita from storin the actual BIOS on a eeprom, specially when you are about to upgrade to a newer version and theres the risk of a power failure/light thunder/hurricane/etc. Boot speed can have an important rule here too.
The other issue, is clearly writing the BIOS in c, gives a much wider target for possible future development and 3rd party support for respective hardware. I mean, probably some will not have the need to wait for that mobo to support your zip/usb disk/stick etc without much effort.
Im a fan of standards, but i quite dont understand why we still use the old BIOS nowadays, with lot of hw manufacters releasing their own’s versions. So i hope this derivates to a standard and world dominance.
What I just dont get is the DRI need, since it adds the fear of windows “only” bootable PCs. But on the time this gets implemented i hope there will a good choice of compatible hardware at affordable prices, to run all spice of unixes without the need to use PC’s tagged by microsoft for their own market.
I find it strange that part of the EFI (ie the modules) will be stored on disk. I can see how that will make it convenient for the EFI extension writers to add new features and facilities without corrupting the EFI framework.
The question is: how does this system protect itself from virus writers. How will the system avoid having rogue modules installed on the sly through a worm or virus that then is able to take control of the computer at boot time?
I ask this because it was not mentioned in the article.
Thanks, Yohn
Heh. Old versions of MacOS don’t run on current hardware for a lot of reasons. Early MacOS – system 1 through 7.x- were optimized for the 68k microprocessor. Middle versions of system 7 (7.6.1 springs to mind) are the minimum for handling the PPC architecture, and 7.x works on everything pre-G3. 8 is the minimum for the beige G3, and 8.5 the minimum for the early iMac and the blue G3- mainly due to things like USB.
In the Mac world, the minimum OS a machine can run is typically whatever was current when the machine shipped, as that revision of the OS was the first with support for that motherboard chipset and onboard features. Mac motherboards aren’t as bare-bones and modular as PCs- you may be able to run CP/M on a P4, but I very much doubt that the OS is going to like your USB card, or offer you any kind of 3d accelleration.
because if Apple can get the functionality out of this BIOS replacment, then Apple could use it rather than OpenFirmware and then the problem of special GFX cards etc, would go away!!!
No, it wouldn’t. Those “special GFX cards” exist because the people selling them know they can charge a premium to Mac users. Up until quite recently, it was possible to simply flash PC video cards with the equivalent Mac models firmware and they would work. Now, video card manufacturers have started shipping the Mac models with larger ROMs on them to stop this.
There is no technological reason to differentiate PC and Mac video cards. Therefore, no technological “solution” will change the fact that vendors charge 50% more for “mac compatible” hardware.
Macs could be based around x86 processors using standard PC chipsets and Mac video/SCSI/network/whatever cards would *still* cost 50% more, only work on Macs, and couldn’t be substituted by cheaper “normal PC cards”. The problem is not technological.
I thought the ROM on the mac cards was flashed with software that can talk to openfirmware. that is why I am saying that if the boot software was the same as PCs, the ROMs on the hardware components would not need to use different firmware.
One of the subtle points of EFI is to put the drivers outside the OS, in the bios. This is as should be. The OS shuld not need to battle with hardware, just call it.
The EFI manual has been available for over 2 years. How
can it be possible that this is just news now?
Pete
EFI grew up on Itanic. If you saw the first versions of EFI on Itanic, you would have run away. EFI was very large, very slow, and not something people liked.
So why does Intel want to move EFI from the Itanic to the Pentanic?
The real motivation in suddenly popularizing EFI is that Intel wants to build a platform that supports both Itanic and Pentanic. There is no way Itanic would work with the existing PC BIOS system, so obviously Pentanic must be moved to EFI.
“yeah and you take a huge hit with performance.”
Not really as it is just used for initialization.
“BTW, you don’t need an X86 emulator, you just need a BIOS emulator”
How can a “BIOS emulator” (whatever that is) execute the hardware initialization code for the video card?
the BIOS is what contains the hardware initialization code. it really does not matter what CPU does the executing, just make sure you create a code that can be understood by the hardware.
One of the subtle points of EFI is to put the drivers outside the OS, in the bios. This is as should be. The OS shuld not need to battle with hardware, just call it.
You’ve just described the wheel that is known as OpenFirmware.
Talking to PC people about a BIOS is like talking to a brick wall. You’re all so behind the times it’s not funny.
And further: Who gives a flying *%&$ about backwards compatibility with the current x86 bios? Isn’t the reason you’re replacing it because it sucks? Why on earth should we be compatible with something that we know to be so bad it needs replaced.
Beyond that, isn’t is about time we quit using 20-year old shit to boot our brand new hardware? The freakin’ BIOS is almost as old as I am for craps sake.
Mac has the same issues as the PC, often times worse, due to lack of pre-ship testing. You may recall the Firewire data loss feature that recently shipped with Mac due to firmware/OS interaction bugs.
There is no panacea for fixing how machines boot. Intel’s EFI, while it mostly sucks just as hard as the existing BIOS, actually is a step forward. It is not a giant step forward. Intel doesn’t make any giant steps forward because it would break the ‘endless upgrade’ cycle that the share price depends on.
actually I recall that it was the drive makers fault because they had a bug in the firmware of their devices.
it still supports the point that there is no panacea but I made it more accurate 😉
I thought the ROM on the mac cards was flashed with software that can talk to openfirmware.
Yes, it is. There are also endian issues that require a different firmware for Mac cards.
that is why I am saying that if the boot software was the same as PCs, the ROMs on the hardware components would not need to use different firmware.
Yes, but the point I’m making is they still would so video card manufacturers could have their 50% markup. The issue here is not technology, it’s economics. The only real modification needed *now* between Mac and PC cards is somewhat different firmware. This firmware does not add 50% to the cost, that’s just the video card manufacturers reaming the Mac buyers because they know they’ll pay it under the excuse of “it’s better hardware”.