On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 04:01:09PM -0400, Daniel P. Smith wrote: > On 5/15/23 21:43, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 08:41:00PM -0400, Daniel P. Smith wrote: > > > On 5/15/23 17:22, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > > What if I don't use grub, but use something that behaves equivalently? > > > > Which value should be used here? > > > > > > Generally we would request that the bootloader submit a request to register > > > for a value to be reserved in the spec. That aside, the intent here is to > > > allow for the possibility for the DLE handler to be independent from the > > > bootloader, but this does not have to be this way. If a non-open entity > > > decides to produce their own implementation, they can freely use a > > > unallocated value at their own risk that it could be allocated to another > > > bootloader in the future. Though in this scenario it likely would not matter > > > as the non-open DLE handler would only be present when the non-open > > > bootloader was present. > > > > Is the expectation that the DLE will always be shipped with the > > bootloader? I think I'm not entirely clear on what's consuming this and > > why. > > > > No, in fact, an early idea proposed by a pair of us in the TrenchBoot > community was to have it live either as a Runtime Service that was loaded by > a UEFI app or in the coreboot UEFI payload. Ok, then I think I'm still confused. If I want to write a new bootloader but make use of the existing DLE, what contract am I establishing and what value should I be putting in here?
