You are clearly contradicting yourself here. You said it yourself that GOP might not be present. Therefore GOP is optional. But what a much bigger problem is, there's no guarantee that you'll get EFI_SIMPLE_FILE_PROTOCOL or EFI_BLOCKIO_PROTOCOL. How do you load an OS if LocateProtocol returns NULL for those? (I would say DISKIO_PROTOCOL, but that never even worked for me on a real hw.)
so, you say, you are creating an OS and yet don't understand what a conditional requiement is?
how does it feel to pretend to not understand lines like these:
3. If a platform includes graphical console devices, then the
EFI_GRAPHICS_OUTPUT_PROTOCOL, EFI_EDID_DISCOVERED_PROTOCOL, and
EFI_EDID_ACTIVE_PROTOCOL must be implemented. In order to support the
EFI_GRAPHICS_OUTPUT_PROTOCOL, a platform must contain a driver to consume
EFI_GRAPHICS_OUTPUT_PROTOCOL and produce
EFI_SIMPLE_TEXT_OUTPUT_PROTOCOL even if the
EFI_GRAPHICS_OUTPUT_PROTOCOL is produced by an external driver.
4. If a platform includes a pointer device as part of its console support, the
EFI_SIMPLE_POINTER_PROTOCOL must be implemented.
5. If a platform includes the ability to boot from a disk device, then the
EFI_BLOCK_IO_PROTOCOL, the EFI_DISK_IO_PROTOCOL, the
EFI_SIMPLE_FILE_SYSTEM_PROTOCOL, and the
EFI_UNICODE_COLLATION_PROTOCOL are required. In addition, partition support for
MBR, GPT, and El Torito must be implemented. For disk devices supporting the security
commands of the SPC-4 or ATA8-ACS command set, the
EFI_STORAGE_SECURITY_COMMAND_PROTOCOL is also required._An external driver may
produce the Block I/O Protocol and the EFI_STORAGE_SECURITY_COMMAND_PROTOCOL.
All other protocols required to boot from a disk device must be carried as part of the platform.
just to look "right" in your own eyes?
Oh, why do I even bother answering you? We all know you're a payed Microsoft troll, you're deaf to reasoning.
I safely can assume, that everyone takes similar to the quoted talks of you with understanding, after your revelations about Terry Davis, or Reiser. At least I do.
I didn't create this thread just to turn into another bzt vs. zaval war. bzt doesn't care for UEFI and Microsoft, zaval loves them both. They really should just add each other to there foes list. Before this gets out of hand, it might be a good idea to lock this thread.
you overestimated my enthusiasm, nexos. see, bzt just wrote another portion of uhm... "incorrect things" about UEFI and all I wanted, was to point out to his errors. Like for example his dreaming about the "ambiguously defined" number of partitions in GPT. after all, bzt is making a UEFI loader, that some poor ones could even use, isn't my desire to correct his numerous misunderstandings a noble goal - those users will pull less hair off their heads, when dealing with bzt "loader" as result.
