AMD OpenSIL Implementation (AGESA Replacement) On Track for 2025

[btarunr]

OpenSIL is an open-source CPU initialization framework project that seeks to replace on-chip initialization microcode, such as AGESA, across both client- and server processors. AMD looks to implement OpenSIL as it makes its AMD EPYC processors more friendly to large customers that want to take control of this aspect of the processor. Since its open-sourcing in June 2023, AMD has come up with reference motherboards implementing OpenSIL, as well as modifying a Supermicro server motherboard to the architecture, to demo at conferences. AMD firmware engineer Paul Grimes presented the company's progress with implementing OpenSIL, at the OSFC conference, in Germany. It's been known that AMD is targeting a 2025-26 timeline for OpenSIL to hit product, but AMD put out specifics, such as its next-generation "Venice" server processor supporting OpenSIL.

"Venice" is codename for an AMD EPYC server processor generation succeeding "Turin." It is built on the future "Zen 6" microarchitecture, and AMD could at least unveil the processor some time in 2025, if not mass-produce it. late-2024 thru 2025 could see the company ramp up "Turin" and other server processors implementing "Zen 5." That's not all, AMD plans to being OpenSIL even to client processors, with the generation of Ryzen processors based on "Zen 6." This will see the AGESA microcode replaced by a first-party firmware from AMD based on OpenSIL, which PC OEMs will be able to customize. The biggest impact of this change will be felt in the commercial notebook and commercial desktop segments, where large organizations can take greater control over the chip initialization firmware.



OpenSIL supports various industry-standard baseboard firmware standards, including the popular UEFI, Coreboot, and Linuxboot. AMD's OpenSIL libraries include xPRF a reference firmware for a given platform, xSIM, a silicon initialization module that is product-specific, and xUSL, which lets OEMs develop utilities and services for OpenSIL.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[Firedrops]

AMD will use this as the excuse to umm ahh about not fulfilling their commitment to AM5 in good faith. Calling it now.

 

[Neo_Morpheus]

Damn, I’m already late for the usual AMD trashing just because its an AMD article.

 

[tommo1982]

Why better control over hardware initialization would appeal to PC manufacturers?

AMD will use this as the excuse to umm ahh about not fulfilling their commitment to AM5 in good faith. Calling it now.

There are numerous reasons to make software open source. In this case, the main reason would be insuficient people to work on the code. Whatever it is, as long as there is an entity governing the repository (be it AMD or some other organization), it's not bad.

 

[_roman_]

This is more a security topic. Which most likely not many consumers will bother with. I doubt everyone will understand the importance of this topic. And why it matters and why it is so important.

 

[tommo1982]

This is more a security topic. Which most likely not many consumers will bother with. I doubt everyone will understand the importance of this topic. And why it matters and why it is so important.

I might not understand the underlying technology, but I understand the need of security. I've seen plenty articles about rootkits and a proof of concept of installing a root kit in CPU's secure procesor (or management engine). What I don't understand why will openISil and better control over hardware initialization benefit PC manufacturers.

 

[ncrs]

Why better control over hardware initialization would appeal to PC manufacturers?

It's not only about hardware initialization but overall low level access. For example AMD already supports firmware customization for laptop manufacturers that allows them to finely tune performance and power characteristics based on physical design of the device. For Linux it's supported by the kernel AMD Platform Management Framework.
While this initial OpenSIL rollout is primarily targeted at the server market it might provide tangible benefits to consumers in the long run such as actual change logs between versions (AGESA versions are enigmatic to say the least), better documentation and view into the internals of SoCs/CPUs.
However it really depends on how security is going to be handled - I doubt that customer-provided firmware parts will be flashable freely, but I'm ready to be surprised on that part.

There are numerous reasons to make software open source. In this case, the main reason would be insuficient people to work on the code. Whatever it is, as long as there is an entity governing the repository (be it AMD or some other organization), it's not bad.

From the announcement it looks like AMD will delay open source releases of their code by one quarter from the official hardware release, and will try to improve the overall firmware ecosystem. I find this policy a sensible compromise.

 

[tommo1982]

From the announcement it looks like AMD will delay open source releases of their code by one quarter from the official hardware release, and will try to improve the overall firmware ecosystem. I find this policy a sensible compromise.

So this is more for the "in the know" people, as I'd say, than a regular user such as myself. Still, I look forward to reading articles about it, even if I only understand some of it
Thank you for explaining.

Edit:
These second language grammar errors

 

[R-T-B]

This is more a security topic. Which most likely not many consumers will bother with. I doubt everyone will understand the importance of this topic. And why it matters and why it is so important.

You really don't know the audience here. No not everyone here gets it of course, but some of us are very well versed in security.

I might not understand the underlying technology, but I understand the need of security. I've seen plenty articles about rootkits and a proof of concept of installing a root kit in CPU's secure procesor (or management engine). What I don't understand why will openISil and better control over hardware initialization benefit PC manufacturers.

It's more of a passing of the buck from my perspective. Not that that's a bad thing. Board makers should have to do some of the firmware legwork themselves, expecting AMD to do most of it ala AGESA is just silly.

 

[igormp]

Why better control over hardware initialization would appeal to PC manufacturers?

PC manufacturers won't care. The likes of Gigabyte, MSI and whatnot do not deal with such low level stuff, they just buy their firmware from AMI/Insyde etc, those are the ones thay might have an interest in picking up such firmware instead of just blindly loading the AGESA.

 

[kapone32]

Open source means new ideas accepted. I am sure that there are not many on even TPU that understand CPU to that level so it will be a quantified field of professionals, students and hobbyists.

 

[Wirko]

Open source means new ideas accepted. I am sure that there are not many on even TPU that understand CPU to that level so it will be a quantified field of professionals, students and hobbyists.

But open source still doesn't mean that everyone will be able to modify the OpenSIL code and drill holes in the boot process, which is hardened against hobbyists, students and especially from professionals. Some modules will be provided and signed by AMD, some by AMI, some by the mobo manufacturer, some by Microsoft, etc.
(Microsoft? For one, they have their Pluton black boxes inside CPUs.)

 

[mechtech]

Interesting

Are there any other benefits besides security?

 

[lexluthermiester]

AMD will use this as the excuse to umm ahh about not fulfilling their commitment to AM5 in good faith. Calling it now.

That's a bit out there...

 

[igormp]

Interesting

Are there any other benefits besides security?

For end users? Not really.

 

[ValenOne]

Fragmentation in boot-firmware platform.

 

[tommo1982]

Fragmentation in boot-firmware platform.

I thought the same, but I understand it won't be the case here.