[qubes-users] HCL - MS_7D25

Qubes-HCL-Micro_Star_International_Co___Ltd_-MS_7D25-20220628-024548.yml (920 Bytes)

Thank you Michael for your HCL report, which is [online](Hardware compatibility list (HCL) | Qubes OS) now.

I assume no comments means everything is working?

/Sven

Hi Sven,

The YAML file in the attachment has the following BIOS version:
"Dasharo (coreboot+UEFI) v1.0.0"
but the HCL site indicates entirely different version: "Dasharo v1.0.0".

Could you please correct it? Thanks.

Hi Michał,

I am trying to keep the BIOS field as short as possible. Could you explain please why "Dasharo (coreboot+UEFI) v1.0.0" is an "entirely different version" from "Dasharo v1.0.0"?

I've previously left "Dasharo (coreboot+UEFI) v0.4.0" unchanged in the case of the MS-7D25 reported by @renehoj. So there is definitely an inconsistency here that needs addressing. I've shortened BIOS entries for "Heads" to just it and the relevant version number for the same reason many times.

Why is the "(coreboot+UEFI)" part important / not redundant? Isn't Dasharo an UEFI implementation on top of coreboot?

In any case, I made the change you requested but would appreciate some background if you could.

/Sven

Hi Sven,

Hi Michał,

I am trying to keep the BIOS field as short as possible. Could you explain please why "Dasharo (coreboot+UEFI) v1.0.0" is an "entirely different version" from "Dasharo v1.0.0"?

I've previously left "Dasharo (coreboot+UEFI) v0.4.0" unchanged in the case of the MS-7D25 reported by @renehoj. So there is definitely an inconsistency here that needs addressing. I've shortened BIOS entries for "Heads" to just it and the relevant version number for the same reason many times.

Why is the "(coreboot+UEFI)" part important / not redundant? Isn't Dasharo an UEFI implementation on top of coreboot?

Dasharo isn't only an UEFI implementation. It may come in various other flavors like (coreboot+SeaBIOS) or (coreboot+heads), etc. More information about the versioning can be found here:
https://docs.dasharo.com/dev-proc/smbios-rules/#bios-information-type-0

Secondly inconsistency in the BIOS version naming on the HCL site could introduce confusion or doubts if it is really the same firmware.

In any case, I made the change you requested but would appreciate some background if you could.

/Sven

Thank you.

Best regards,

1 Like