October firmware events

Apropos of the 25 year anniversary of the first IBI/EFI/UEFI boot services at week ago, as commemorated at the 20 year milestone in https://vzimmer.blogspot.com/2018/10/  

                                                        "Ken Reneris     Oct-14-1998"  

there was a question of the coding standards for UEFI https://twitter.com/bexcran/status/1701071379171619236 recently which made me think of Ken. I mentioned how that since Ken had come over to Intel from the Windows NT team at Microsoft it was natural to adopt the NT coding standard https://computernewb.com/~lily/files/Documents/NTDesignWorkbook/coding.pdf for the original IBI/EFI/UEFI work. This includes the EFI_ERROR macros, inf's, CR macro, TPLs as simplified IRQLs https://vzimmer.blogspot.com/2015/06/guids-revisions-interrupts.html, etc. This made IBI/EFI/UEFI a sort of a cultural 'Windows BIOS' given that lineage. 

And Ken as the MS HAL owner continually interfaced with the platform. In fact, standards like ACPI pre-dated IBI/EFI/UEFI by starting in the mid-90's. Ken was deep into that work, too, as evidenced by his solo inventor ship of the now-expired S4 resume patent https://patents.google.com/patent/US6209088B1/en. 

These UEFI technology elements serve a counterpoint with coreboot, which was LinuxBIOS in 99. The latter have technology elements https://www2.cs.arizona.edu/~mccann/cstyle.html, KConfig, etc.  

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4842-0070-4. So just as we have had parallel growth of Windows and Linux, there have been threads of 'Windows BIOS' (e.g., EDKII UEFI based) and 'LinuxBIOS' (e.g., coreboot and maybe less so u-boot?).

But then again, who uses 'BIOS' https://basicinputoutput.com/2014/08/will-i-be-jailed-for-saying-uefi-bios.html? 

So the blog title is firmware events. Over the last couple of weeks there was a UEFI plugfest in the Portland area and a Open Compute Project (OCP) event in San Jose. As I drove back from the former, I stopped by a bookstore and saw https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-BIOS-Developing-Extensible-Interface/dp/1501514784

on the shelf.

On that same shelf I saw 

and

Though not the immediate book neighbor, the nearby https://www.amazon.com/ARM-Architecture-Reference-Manual-2nd/dp/0201737191 reminded me of Dave Jaggar. Back in the mid-1990's we were development hardware RAID controllers at Compaq and using custom ASICs alongside an AMD 29k RISC CPU. I recall Jaggar from ARM coming to visit and explaining the ARM architecture. Part of the discourse included showing a silicon die with a small portion highlighted for the ARM core itself. It was quite a shock for me to so such small mm-squared for a CPU. My firmware lead (lead == sole design & developer) work on the SMART-2SL 

https://www.amazon.com/Compaq-242777-001-WIDE-SCSI-CONTROLLER-242777001/dp/B0002FDXLQ is but a memory to be rekindled occasionally by seeing aftermarket examples of this device. In addition to being the first device to not have a non-volatile post write cache, this work gave me the opportunity to do some interesting firmware performance innovations with a colleague https://patents.google.com/patent/US6341342B1/en. 

Speaking of CPQ, it has been a strange migration of companies for me. My original internship was with Texaco, which in turn was purchased by Chevron. Then I did my first full-time firmware development at Daniel Industries, later acquired by Emerson Electric. My first foray into PC BIOS was at Texas Microsystems (TMI) working on industrial computers, which then was acquired by Radisys. Finally, my pre-Intel employer Compaq server group was in turn acquired by Hewlett-Packard, and then split into the enterprise side HPe. Luckily Intel is still Intel.

So speaking of the development event, it spanned 3 days. I presented on the first day (lower left image)

https://uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/Tuesday_02_Kubacki%20and%20Zimmer_Final.pdf and final

day (rightmost image) https://uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/Firmware%20Configuration%20%E2%80%93%20Past%2C%20Present%2C%20and%20Future_Zimmer.pdf. The first day of the event included a description of SPDM https://www.dmtf.org/standards/spdm and its support introduced into the UEFI 2.10 specification. SPDM is homed at the DMTF but has associated work-product having in groups like UEFI and the Trusted Computing Group (TCG). 

In the Insyde talk Tim Lewis mentioned the growth of attacks on the UEFI network stack after many years of battering SMM. This reminded me of a recent posting I saw https://www.linaro.org/blog/ledge-blogs-uefi-http-and-https-boot-in-u-boot/ where the U-Boot community discussing using https://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/lwip/ which is a similar approach taken in https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-staging/tree/MpNetworkStack mentioned in https://uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/7_Maciej%20Vincent_INTEL_network%20stack%20performance.pdf. From the days of discussing HTTP booting in 2009 https://dblp.org/rec/conf/csreaSAM/Zimmer09.html?view=bibtex and having the URL boot option mentioned in https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5970.txt has come a long way. Just as EDKII consumes cryptography as a submodule from another community, maybe it's time to do so for the basic networking capabilities.

Given that AWS started in 2006, it may have a bit short-sighted of me to have said "...emergent compute models such as cloud computing." in that SAM 09 paper.

Maybe I was keying off the 09 date of what I thought was the definitive paper on the cloud, viz., https://www2.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2009/EECS-2009-28.pdf.

So back to the topic of this blog, namely firmware events. On that topic, the next week came the Open Compute Project (OCP) event in San Jose. I first presented at OCP in 2015 with Mallik Bulusu https://cdrdv2.intel.com/v1/dl/getContent/671185 

and then again in 2016 on firmware updates http://files.opencompute.org/oc/public.php?service=files&t=1f7831234dce58bb875b1b5b24f7154d. 

This session last week was on the universal payload

I have been engaged on server platforms since I was hired into Intel in February 1997 to lead the IA-64 (Merced, Itanium) firmware. Along the way we devised ways to facilitate ease of firmware development, like multi-socket cache-as-RAM https://patents.google.com/patent/US7254676B2/en 

and similar for IA-32 https://patents.google.com/patent/US8078862B2/en. Palsamy and I also collaborated on UEFI and ACPI for RAS and error support https://cdrdv2.intel.com/v1/dl/getContent/671067. 

And all of these threads come together in these recent talks. The SPDM prezo mentioned at the top of the posting here entail facing the post-quantum cryptographic migrations like all of the other standards, including UEFI https://uefi.org/, TCG https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/, and others. The proposal for augmenting UEFI is mentioned in https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4087 and some prezos on the topic can be found at https://uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/Post%20Quantum%20Webinar.pdf and https://uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/USF_Security_Webinar_Final.pdf. The specific study on SPDM was posted as a pre-print to https://eprint.iacr.org/2022/1049 and then a journal submission in https://www.mdpi.com/2410-387X/6/4/48. 

Since SPDM has fixed message sizes, the concept of 'chunking' or breaking up the larger payloads demanded by these post-quantum algorithms is a common concern other hardware-based messaging interfaces will face, like the Trusted Computing Group's Trusted Platform Module (TPM). Interestingly this topic of post-quantum impacts on firmware standards that motivated the SPDM paper

 listed above was inspired by the study https://eprint.iacr.org/2021/041 from Cisco.

And during Q/A with the CISA presentation during the UEFI developer event I asked about formal methods for this domain. Since this talk followed the SPDM talk one recommendation was to use formal for the SPDM wire protocol. It turns out the above MDPI SPDM paper is referenced by a few formal studies of SPDM, including https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity23/presentation/cremers-spdm and https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/10149352/. 

And speaking of security and standards, this upcoming week is the TCG members meeting at the Google campus in Kirkland, WA. I am Intel's representative on the Technical Committee, assuming that role after Kirk Brannock retired. 

 

But the TCG is not unfamiliar to me. I have been engaged with TCG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computing_Group even when it was called TCPA, as evidenced by work-product like https://patents.google.com/patent/US7200758B2/en and delivering the Itanium and EFI API and platform specification, respectively.

When reading https://research.tue.nl/en/publications/communication-in-a-world-of-pervasive-surveillance-sources-and-me from the mention of Jacob in https://www-theregister-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.theregister.com/AMP/2023/09/19/marvell_disputes_claim_that_cavium/, I hearkened back to my first ToorCamp presentation 

Based upon the slide

and discussion around the TPM, Jacob told me that we should design a TPM so that it could quickly be removed from board and chewed up/swallowed if someone tries to take your computer. Quite the privacy-preserving dietary strategy.

It's interesting to see people in person after the years of COVID seclusion and event cancellation or wholly-virtual events. Just like the psychic shock and fatigue of crowds, continual interaction and noise, it is taking a bit of effort to get re-acclimated. Part of the symptomology is falling behind on blogging, I guess, since I had intended to post this entry on the day of the EFI 25-year anniversary, not a week later. Oh well. Only so many free moments on the weekends these days.

Re-use - ideas, et al.

This is a quick note on 're-use'.  Recall how UEFI was derived from EFI, which in turn started as IBI, as mentioned in in http://vzimmer.blogspot.com/2018/10/ghosts-of.html and various histories of EFI in books http://vzimmer.blogspot.com/2021/01/books-and-computers.html and papers https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/research/2011-vol15-iss-1-intel-technology-journal.pdf. 

As a background, the original Intel Boot Initiative had its own filesystem called "IBIFS". It was a simple log-structured filesystem that made for easy parsing. But the challenge with this filesystem was how to provision boot media from other operating systems, such as Windows. In the 1990's MS-FAT was the prevailing filesystem although it was much more complex than IBIFS. The IBI/EFI team was encourage to adopt MS-FAT https://download.microsoft.com/download/1/6/1/161ba512-40e2-4cc9-843a-923143f3456c/fatgen103.doc, along with PE/COFF https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/debug/pe-format executables, as the filesystem and executable format, respectively. This was supported by having a license to use these specifications for production of EFI firmware. 

The other advantage of using MS filesystem included MS providing tools to format, check and provision disks https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/download/714351/uefi-shell-disk-utilities.html whose sources were derived from MS Installable Filesystem (IFS) C++ kit provided to OEM's. This was my first dive into C++-on-a-C-framework (i.e., no global constructors, etc).

And PE/COFF allowed for using Visual Studio and commercial linkers. At the time we had less luck in getting PDB format and KD wire protocol made public. We wouldn't open source the EFI Debug support protocol and nub based upon reversing that infrastructure, of course. 

Of course using ANSI C with PE/COFF was more advantageous than using non-standard art like the coreboot romcc that proved brittle to maintain long-term, although it was a clever solution prior to the advent of cache-as-ram (CAR) https://www.coreboot.org/data/yhlu/cache_as_ram_lb_09142006.pdf. Prior to CAR we had to perform unnatural acts using MMX registers and other on-processor resources (with the peak weirdness of PEI CIS 0.3 and its register 'call levels') in order to implement pre-permanent memory flows like DRAM initialization in the host firmware. 

I was reminded of this logic of re-use based upon a few recent topics, including USF https://github.com/universalscalablefirmware and EDK2 GSoC conversation. On the USF topic, there is a discussion of using a self-describing format like CBOR https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8949.html in lieu of the UEFI HOB's https://universalscalablefirmware.groups.io/g/discussion/files/New%20data%20format%20for%20Universal%20Payload%20Interface.pdf. Even though I helped create HOB's, I am one of the first to support moving to a more standard format, especially given the existence of work like https://github.com/intel/tinycbor. To me this is the same spirit of using known filesystem formats, etc.

When asked about this I often cite the economics of host firmware development. Imagine a 5,000 person host firmware producing community across open source participants, OEM's, ODM's, firmware vendors, first party device creators, etc.  Recall the supply chain picture from erstwhile 2015 CanSecWest prezo

As such, compare this to the application and OS producing community that is easily orders of magnitude larger. Given the developer community size disparity it is difficult to justify the R&D and validation expense for bespoke host firmware-only solutions. Given NIH sometimes in engineering communities I also quote "Good artists invent, great artists steal" Picasso  https://medium.com/ben-shoemate/what-does-it-mean-good-artists-copy-great-artists-steal-ee8fd85317a0.

And given challenges of HOB's I understand the critique of Terse Executable (TE) during gsoc thread "[edk2-discuss] GSoC Proposala replacement for the TE format (it’s buggy and most platforms mostly abandoned it over various issues)," I'm not sure where he received his telemetry on 'abandoned' for working systems. Scraping FD images from the internet? Similar to some of the weird history on those GSoC threads like "PEI and DXE in 1998" when the latter were created in early 2000's as derivatives of EFI into the earlier boot flow. This TE assertion is close to home given the TE image format signature has 'vz' as opposed to PE/COFF 'mz', as originally described in https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Bios-Implementing-Extensible-Interface/dp/0974364908

So has the TE image been relevant in the industry? Let's do some rough back-of-the-envelope calculations. To begin, the TE image format is easily over 20 years old. In the spirit of the last blog on statistics I'd sat we started to scale Framework EDKII in 2005

Imagine in the ensuing years it's tough to calculate the number of PC's, servers, and clients that shipped using UEFI PI-based firmware, including #'s like https://www.statista.com/statistics/576151/unit-shipments-pcs-united-states/. For Windows8 UEFI was required so you can argue 100% at that point. 

To take a swag lets assume 250 million units / year over the last 17 years, yielding 4.25 billion units. Let's also assume the fabrication of the PEI phase pre-memory uses TE's and that each fv/ibb/fvrecovery has ~ 50 peim's compiled with TE. So that would yield the market has shipped 50 * 4.25  =  212.5 billion TE images into the market. And if platform updated 5 times during life, 1 trillion TE's may have been produced. So even if we go 'Beyond TE', 1T has been a good run. And I look forward to the next wave of firmware technologists' proposals - the critique is a pre-condition to invention/innovation - but the next wave needs to close the loop by proposing, documenting, coding, delivering, validating, and scaling their alternative. 

I still recall meeting one of the original developers of MS-FAT in Windows at a driver dev-con in the early 2000's in Redmond. He mentioned that 'writing the code was only 10% of the effort.' The latter class of activities were the remaining 90% for a professional software engineer. Or the old trope 'the last 10% of a project takes 90% of the time.'

Finally, these cardinality of the produced TE image set calculations remind me of a colleague at Cornell during my undergrad. He worked part-time in the astrophysics department, whereas I spent time modeling and mocking up particle beams for a professor who did microwave and plasma research as part of SDI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative. My friend noted that the astrophysics researchers there would reckon calculations plus or minus a couple orders of magnitude. I won't argue host firmware is of the same scale but it does note the challenges in precision in various domains.

Sometimes folks believe in bespoke and not studying the past arc of history in tech. I recommend spending some time on bitsavers.org, for example, to folks. But it reminds me of the advice given to me by a retired manager - "Sometimes you see someone put their hand in the chipper. You can say 'there's a chipper, there's a chipper', but they ignore you. Once they are beyond their elbow you need to jump in, at least." Or the dual of child rearing, which was "Sometimes the young child needs to bump her knees on the coffee table while learning to walk."  For those not in the PNW a chipper is https://www.familyhandyman.com/list/best-wood-chippers/.

BTW
I just sampled some of the OCP Security https://www.opencompute.org/wiki/Security tech talks. Work to avoid e-waste such as ownership transfer https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oANhjvv_R7E5n8w1RroN8l8-0jdYlfdQDp_3RqGV66k/edit# for servers presented by Google datacenter engineer nicely complements their work on Chromebooks with their developer mode https://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/chromiumos-design-docs/developer-mode/ and other art to allow for unsupported devices to be over-flashed by community firmware for continued life & usage. Nice to see work to avoid aged hardware from only have a fate of visiting the refuse bin/salvage yard.

It might be a stretch to analogize re-use of ideas in this blog post and re-use of hardware in the circular economy from this OCP talk. The former stands on the shoulders of giants and leverages information ecosystems (knowledge, tools, remediated flaws) whereas the latter leverages extant hardware for appropriate use-cases. But interesting stuff nevertheless.

fin (98)

operating system vendors and firmware

The PC industry has followed an interesting arc, beginning with the hardware and firmware details of the original IBM PC http://bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/pc/pc/6025008_PC_Technical_Reference_Aug81.pdf and the closed source Microsoft (MS) operating system MS/DOS https://github.com/microsoft/MS-DOS. The former allowed for the ability to have clones of the IBM PC, whereas the latter ensured some consistency in the platform design as compatibility with DOS, and then Windows, helped provide for the open platform that non-MS OS's like Linux today enjoy. 

Was the distinction between MS as an OS vendor (OSV) and the industry as a platform provider always so stark? In fact, the existence of MS-written firmware, as one example, has had various examples spanning the 90's up through today's news. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To begin:

In the early days of Windows NT, including 3.51 and 4.0, Microsoft wrote the ARC boot firmware for their DEC Alpha and MIPS NT platforms. ARC stands for Advanced RISC Computing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_RISC_Computing and the document http://www.netbsd.org/docs/Hardware/Machines/ARC/riscspec.pdf provided guidance on both platform hardware and firmware. A couple of MS engineers wrote the first ARC firmware and the ARC specification, along with IEEE 1275 Open Firmware (OF) https://www.openfirmware.info/data/docs/of1275.pdf, were considered as a solution for 'how to boot Itanium' during the early days of the IBI/EFI specification. 1275 came up because the PowerPC port of NT booted via OF. EFI ended up looking more like ARC, see similarity between the ARC Firmware Function Vector and UEFI System Table, although OF does have some advantages, especially for security https://www.cs.cornell.edu/~kozen/Papers/acsac.pdf. 

Another interesting aspect of the ARC Alpha firmware was that the NT NDIS miniport drivers from NT were embedded in the firmware for purposes of pre-OS networking, such as network booting. Other than boot loaders like U-Boot which liberally leverages portions of device driver code, this OS and firmware code sharing helps solve one of the main challenges of boot firmware, namely having to create a firmware version of a device driver for the block, network, and console services in the pre-OS and another variant for the OS runtime. 

 |

 |

\/

Fast forward to the early 2000's. At that time there was a project called FlexGo    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_FlexGo which allowed for a metered, or subscription PC.  There was MS firmware integrated into the code morpher, or microcode-like firmware of the Transmeta device https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmeta https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/76602-amd-to-resell-transmetas-payasyougo-chip. For some of the standard PC's at the time, there was exploration of having the monitoring agent from MS as an additional handler in System Management Mode (SMM) of the BIOS

 |

 |

\/

In the early 2010's, the industry was moving from a TPM 1.2 to 2.0. One of the learning's from the 1.2 era was that the specification for the commands lent themselves to various interpretations. As such, the TPM 2.0 specification was written in 'literate code' where the C based implementation of the commands could be extracted. The latter C code has formed the underlying implementation   https://github.com/microsoft/ms-tpm-20-ref for all of the integrated and discrete 2.0 devices. This code was born of the 'firmware TPM' work described in the technical report https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/msr-tr-2015-84.pdf. 

 |

 |

\/

In the 20-teens, there emerged from Microsoft Project Mu for BIOS https://microsoft.github.io/mu/. Although this is officially referred to as a downstream fork of EDKII on tianocore.org, there are many unique aspects, especially features like DFCI in https://github.com/microsoft/mu_plus.

A more recent example includes MS writing the SMM supervisor for AMD SecureCore PC https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog/2020/11/12/system-management-mode-deep-dive-how-smm-isolation-hardens-the-platform/ variant mentioned during OSFC '20 'hallway chat.'

And for the broader industry MS wrote many SMM audit and checking tools in Mu to help prepare the OEM ecosystem for having their handlers running in the jailed context of the SecureCore PC SMm supervisor.

 |

 |

\/

In the future, MS hardware Pluton hardware and firmware https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog/2020/11/17/meet-the-microsoft-pluton-processor-the-security-chip-designed-for-the-future-of-windows-pcs/ may be even more deeply integrated.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Beyond the long run of the MS examples above you can see a similar, albeit shorter in time, arc for Google, especially Google as an OSV with respect to ChromeOS. It begins with the Google Chromebooks leveraging coreboot + vboot  https://www.coreboot.org/ where Google employees are many of the upstream maintainers. 

 |

 |

\/

More recently, the Titan/OpenTitan  https://opentitan.org/ has emerged. This is a root of trust with the CPU based upon RISC-V and the operating system based upon the Tock OS https://github.com/google/tock-on-titan written in Rust. Interesting stuff.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And you cannot have firmware without hardware, of course. Google Titan-M and the OpenTitan are one example.

For Microsoft, MS already has its XBox360 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_technical_specifications and XBox One https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_One, which were custom PowerPC "Watermoose" and AMD "Jaguar" based SOC's, respectively.

There are also always rumors in the air for MS, such as recent one on ARM https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/12/microsoft-may-be-developing-its-own-in-house-arm-cpu-designs/ and earlier one on custom designs like E2 https://www.theregister.com/2018/06/18/microsoft_e2_edge_windows_10/.

For Google we already have ample public details on their Tensor Processing Unit (TPU) https://semiengineering.com/knowledge_centers/integrated-circuit/ic-types/processors/tensor-processing-unit-tpu/ and the above-listed Open Titan first party silicon, but these are not general purpose system on a chip (SOC). Of course even Google has the rumor mill swirling on occasion with stories like "Whitechapel" https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/14/21221062/google-processor-pixels-chromebooks-whitechapel-samsung-qualcomm, too.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So how does the OS impact the firmware? Well, since the firmware is closely tied to the overall platform and hardware design, OS 'requirements' documents http://download.microsoft.com/download/7/0/e/70e74967-b0fe-477a-974f-c1ed16ee31df/windows8-1-hardware-cert-requirements-system.pdf and https://source.android.com/compatibility/10/android-10-cdd can dictate some of these choices. And even for more open firmware implementations like Chromebooks you can see the coupling https://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/2014-firmware-summit.

"So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish"

Yesterday my last day in DuPont after nearly 18 years, 15 of those in the same cube, here at this WA Intel site. Off to work at the Seattle office in early '15. So long, DuPont, and thanks for the memories. And all of the Fish, although in this case 'Andrew Fish.' Although Fish doesn't work at Intel any longer, the inventor of the "Intel Boot Initiative" (IBI), which became EFI/UEFI, still lives in the South Puget Sound. We broke bread for the final time at our favorite local restaurant.

This is the "R&R" mentioned in the acknowledgements section of the 2nd edition of Beyond BIOS http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-BIOS-Developing-Extensible-Interface/dp/1934053295/, "Also many of this team will recall over ten years of "design discussions" at R&R." I captured Fish on the left and Mark Doran http://newsroom.intel.com/community/intel_newsroom/bios?n=Mark%20S.%20Doran&f=searchAll on the right eating our final Teriyaki bowls. As always, good conversations on firmware and technology. And the picture is also epic in that the duo often introduces itself as "Andrew Fish who invented EFI, and Mark Doran who delivered it to the industry."  Mike Kinney & I held down the other side of the table. I've learned quite a bit working with all three of these colleagues over these many years.

During my final days at Compaq in late 1996 I talked to Intel about joining, and my options were "Join Portland for Xeon, or DuPont for Merced." I was inspired by the thought of joining the 64-bit revolution, so there was no doubt in my mind as to which locale to choose.  Also, having grown up in Texas, the Pacific Northwest was a large unknown, so the distinction between OR and WA didn't even factor into my decision.

And my whole tenure at Intel in DuPont since February 1997 has been boot firmware.  I began with a PC/AT BIOS underneath the Merced System Abstraction Layer (SAL), with the original OS loader interface of SAL_PROC (0x13), as a 64-bit mapping of BIOS 13h.  Same for video mapping of SAL_PROC (0x10), keyboard of SAL_PROC (0x13), etc. The OS community wasn't amused.

As the OS interface evolved to C-based IBI, then EFI, the underlying boot infrastructure changed. I moved from driving some of the SAL-on-BIOS for server (aka "FrankenBIOS"), to the short-lived Workstation Product Division (WPD) where we evolved a C-based boot solution. The latter pioneered art such as the Furball and interposer, which were the predecessor of the Intel Framework Compatibility Support Module (CSM) and CSM16 binary.  We called the former 'furball' because it was something we imagined a native 32-bit (IA32) and 64-bit (Itanium) firmware solution would eventually 'cough up', with a less than pleasant imagery derived from the world of cats.

In 1999 we had evolved the workstation firmware to binary modules called "Plug-In Modules", or PIM's. I recall a fateful meeting with the lead on that effort and my colleague visiting from OR. The conversation went something like 'And we can also put the PIM's into option ROMs, too.' At that point I realized the trajectory was ill-fated since the problem with open platforms and option ROM's isn't factoring code to run in that storage container so much as 'how' to interoperate with the system firmware, namely what API's to expose, where to define them, and how to evolve this art. And to that end, I realized that EFI would win as it was the only man standing to solve this problem.

Specifically, EFI nailed down the interface methodology to the OS loader and option ROM community where the broad interoperability was needed.  Moving the underlying initialization firmware to a new methodology, such as what became Intel Framework and then UEFI PI was valuable, but not the necessary first step.  The first step was to lay the foundation for broad interop in order to have time for the top-level OS and IHV ecosystem to start moving their dependent infrastructure.

At that point in my career when I had that realization, I was lucky enough to have a friend and Intel colleague like Andrew Fish who suggested I have lunch with Mark Doran.  Afterward I on-boarded to the EFI team in 1999 and the rest has been a great 15 run on helping evolve EFI into UEFI, EFI-on-BIOS into Framework and then UEFI PI, and the open source offering from "EFI Sample" to EDK to today's EDK II.  Since then a lot of code and specifications have ensued

with hopefully more to come in 2015+.  Not sure if there is another 15 years into the run.  Although one co-developer of Tiano, the code-name for the underlying Framework (and now PI work) quipped a few years ago "We said Tiano was the '20 year' BIOS replacement solution, so when did you start counting?"

Speaking of 2015+, I had better get back to work if I want to get a head start on the next way of the firmware revolution started in South Puget Sound, WA.

Cheers