On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Patrick Masotta via Syslinux <syslinux at zytor.com> wrote:>>>>> > website (meaning, HP could test their firmware to be compatible with > Syslinux and with non-Windows OSes). If the HP firmware could be made > (more) compliant with UEFI specs, or if it could be improved and still > be compliant with UEFI specs, wouldn't that be helpful to everyone > involved? > > Regards, > Ady. > <<<< > > HP (and the rest) should just check their firmware against the "UEFI standard". > Plus FW new versions should fix more than just only critical and security issues. > Today is like this: You say you want better firmware? OK, then buy our new line of PC. > i.e. Elitebooks 2560p/8460p fail while the newer Elitebooks 2570p/8470p work > like a charm :-/As stated before, it is my understanding that the Elitebook 2560p/8460p devices _are_compliant_ with UEFI-2.0 which stated to use an SNP directly under PXEBC while UEFI-2.1 stated to use a MNP directly under the PXEBC. Please don't call these devices non-compliant UNLESS you are more specific. Another solution that I'm not sure if anyone has tried with these devices that are UEFI-2.0-compliant and UEFI-2.1-noncompliant is using iPXE to stack ontop of the underlying firmware to run Syslinux. Regarding HP and the lack of "support", I always consider "support" as something you can contact technical support about while "functional" is more community-supported. It's common to find a lack of Linux support. -- -Gene
> > Regarding HP and the lack of "support", I always consider "support" as > something you can contact technical support about while "functional" > is more community-supported. It's common to find a lack of Linux > support. > > -- > -Gene >These particular devices are sold with some Windows OS, or alternatively with some Linux OS. There are some downloads in the HP support site for Linux available for these particular models, but, based on the not-so-short list of updates for their firmware under the Windows OS category for these models, HP seems to "sell" them (or at least, used to) with Linux, but not really "support" it. Considering that someone from inside HP was writing to the Syslinux Mailing List, I was hoping it could perhaps trigger some positive reaction. As they say, hope is the last thing... Regards, Ady.
On Aug 15, 2015 8:56 AM, "Ady via Syslinux" <syslinux at zytor.com> wrote:> > > > > Regarding HP and the lack of "support", I always consider "support" as > > something you can contact technical support about while "functional" > > is more community-supported. It's common to find a lack of Linux > > support. > > > > -- > > -Gene > > > > These particular devices are sold with some Windows OS, or > alternatively with some Linux OS. There are some downloads in the HP > support site for Linux available for these particular models, but, > based on the not-so-short list of updates for their firmware under the > Windows OS category for these models, HP seems to "sell" them (or at > least, used to) with Linux, but not really "support" it. > > Considering that someone from inside HP was writing to the Syslinux > Mailing List, I was hoping it could perhaps trigger some positive > reaction. As they say, hope is the last thing...HP appears to finally be committing to splitting end user devices (desktops, laptops, printers) from enterprise infrastructure (servers, networking), at least as far as support. Without the support of higher management, that's a huge gap to cross. --Gene
>>>As stated before, it is my understanding that the Elitebook 2560p/8460p devices _are_compliant_ with UEFI-2.0 which stated to use an SNP directly under PXEBC while UEFI-2.1 stated to use a MNP directly under the PXEBC.? Please don't call these devices non-compliant UNLESS you are more specific. <<< Hi Gene, you could be right; the problem is that HP (and others) in general do not say the version of UEFI their FWs are compliant with. I think I can say today they are not compliant because the last FW revision for i.e. 8460p was released 31 Mar 2015; if you are right and they were initially based on UEFI 2.0 shouldn't they update to newer UEFI versions?? UEFI 2.0 is almost 10 years old !>>>>Another solution that I'm not sure if anyone has tried with these devices that are UEFI-2.0-compliant and UEFI-2.1-noncompliant is using iPXE to stack ontop of the underlying firmware to run Syslinux. <<<< # grep EFI_UDP4_SERVICE_BINDING_PROTOCOL_GUID ./ -r over iPXE source didn't show iPXE installing the missing Service Binding protocols then syslinux.efi will fail at the same place when trying to find the missing SB. Best, Patrick
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Patrick Masotta <masottaus at yahoo.com> wrote:>>>> > As stated before, > it is my understanding that the Elitebook 2560p/8460p devices _are_compliant_ with > UEFI-2.0 which stated to use an SNP directly under PXEBC while UEFI-2.1 stated to use a MNP > directly under the PXEBC. Please don't call these devices non-compliant UNLESS you > are more specific. > <<< > > Hi Gene, > you could be right; the problem is that HP (and others) > in general do not say the version of UEFI their FWs are compliant with. > I think I can say today they are not compliant because the last > FW revision for i.e. 8460p was released 31 Mar 2015; if you are right > and they were initially based on UEFI 2.0 shouldn't they update > to newer UEFI versions?? UEFI 2.0 is almost 10 years old !I agree it's aged but unfortunately it's probably too late. In my general experience with PC BIOSs/firmwares, there's only 6-18 months after the release of the first successor product that they *might* bother with anything beyond bug fixes unless it's a platform with a 5-10+ year lifespan. Most PCs are designed with an intended 3-year lifespan while often lasting 5+. I've seen select systems designed for a 7+ year lifespan with warranties and parts availability guarantees but they're often intended to be stuffed in a closet, not on someone's desk.>>>>> > Another solution that I'm not sure if anyone has tried with > these devices that are UEFI-2.0-compliant and UEFI-2.1-noncompliant is using > iPXE to stack ontop of the underlying firmware to run Syslinux. > <<<< > > # grep EFI_UDP4_SERVICE_BINDING_PROTOCOL_GUID ./ -r > over iPXE source didn't show iPXE installing the missing Service Binding > protocols then syslinux.efi will fail at the same place when trying to find > the missing SB.$ git grep -in 'udp.*service.*binding' $ git grep -in 'udp4' shows multiple matches in various formats though I agree it doesn't appear it provides the bindings. -- -Gene