[ACTIVITY] Meeting minutes from 13Oct2011
plagnioj at jcrosoft.com
Wed Oct 19 14:14:37 UTC 2011
On 23:20 Tue 18 Oct , Grant Likely wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
> <plagnioj at jcrosoft.com> wrote:
> > On 22:30 Mon 17 Oct , Grant Likely wrote:
> >> 2) Implement rudimentary boot menu support in u-boot (if it doesn't
> >> already exist). Doesn't need to be graphical, but at least have a
> >> default boot with a list of other boot options.
> > take a llok on Barebox
> > The format I propose will use the menu implemetation to display the boot
> > choice
> > I really think we can have barebox on server very quicly as barebox already
> > support the disk device and menu.
> > And if need I've an implementation of the framebuffer console
> I don't disagree here; but for the purpose of making recommendations
> for to the TSC for short term work items, it will not get any traction
> to propose barebox work items when I see pretty much zero interest
> among the Linaro member companies. That's why it is phrased in terms
> of u-boot specificly.
> >> 3) Investigate implementing signed images a la secure boot. Need to
> >> investigate existing secure boot formats and policies so we don't do
> >> something gratuitously different.
> >> I don't disagree with the FIT image topics, but I'm not including them
> >> in this list of recommendations because they don't have much bearing
> >> on the task of working out ARM server infrastructure.
> > They are usefull to have in one image multple kernel/dtb/initrd
> Yes it is for many embedded use cases. However, for the server use
> case the distribution vendors are pretty much needing separate kernel
> and initrd images since pretty much all their infrastructure is set up
> to work in that mode on x86.
So take a look on my proposal of the boot menu with DTB as input
More information about the boot-architecture