boot-architecture May 2018

boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org

25 participants
38 discussions

EBBR Weekly - Agenda 3 May 2018

by Grant Likely

Hi folks, This is a call for agenda items for tomorrow's EBBR meeting. So far I just have: - Action item review - Any other business As always, this Google doc will be used to capture notes. Please help filling it in. You may need to request edit access if I haven't already added you. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RdlFp5SIrvjcVOGoGEFVYDsqTqFBJHugbBMV5Mu… --- Every Thursday at 16:30 UTC/BST, 8:30 PST/PDT, 00:30 CST (following UTC/BST daylight savings time shifts) Online meeting: https://meet.lync.com/armh/grant.likely/YBY93TIK Skype Web App: https://meet.lync.com/armh/grant.likely/YBY93TIK?sl=1 Phone +44 2033215213,, 4664465# Find a local number: https://dialin.lync.com/7bdb65cd-97d0-44fe-bc03-bf8072eadc33 Conference ID: 4664465 IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.

5 years, 10 months

Proposed EBBR Document Structure

by Grant Likely

I've been thinking about how to organize EBBR. It started matching the SBBR document structure with the ACPI & ACPI sections removed, but I've moved things around a bit (for instance, citations are now at the end and use the citation markup so they can be collected from the whole document.) We also want to talk about some device sharing issues that SBBR doesn't need to get into, so we need a place to put that stuff. For discussion, what do you think of the following Table of Contents? I do expect this to change, but I'd like to come to general agreement on how the document is structured. 1. About this Document 1.1 Introcution 1.2 Scope 2. UEFI 2.1 UEFI Version 2.2 UEFI Compliance 2.3 UEFI System Environment and Configuration 2.4 UEFI Boot Services 2.4.1 Required (Moved from Appendix to here) 2.4.2 Optional (this section may be redundant. If it isn't required, then by default it is optional!!) 2.5 UEFI Runtime Services 2.5.1 Required 2.5.2 Optional 3. System Configuration Data 3.1 Devicetree 3.2 ACPI 4. Privileged Firmware 4.1 PSCI 4.2 Secure Services 5. Hardware Configuration and Access 5.1 Shared Storage Media 5.1.1 Block device partitioning 5.1.2 Protecting firmware partitions/blocks 5.2 Shared access (i2c/SPI) 5.3 RTC (Everything below is additional guidance material, and doesn't make up part of the spec. I've not decided if I'd rather have it in the documentm, or as a separate guidance note) Appendix A - U-Boot implementation note (How to configure U-Boot to be EBBR compliant) Appendix B - EBBR Compliance Testing IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.

5 years, 10 months

Notes on "requiring" separate storage

by William Mills

Hello, My notes on "requiring" (or strongly recommending) separate storage. A couple of times we have gone around the issue of "is it reasonable to require new platforms have separate storage for firmware". Pros: P1) No disk partition plan etc P2) Runtime var storage is much easier Cons: C1) Cost C2) Boot speed C3) Board becomes "state full" and brick-able C4) Need Buy-in from board makers I hope we understand the pros so I won't go deep on those. WRT C1 & C2: Cost & boot speed Pocket Beagle ($25) has a 2Kx8 I2C EEPROM built into the SIP (system in package). This allows a single binary SPL to boot from uSD on multiple boards (PocketBeagle BBW, BBB, BBBlue, TI EVM, etc) as the EEPROM has board ID info. I looked for other low cost boards with dedicated firmware storage. PINE A64-LTS ($32) and SOPINE ($30) have 16MB of SPI flash. The original PINE A64 ($15) has no on board storage. Are there other boards I should look at? What would this look like if we put: * SPL & vars only into SPI flash * SPL & U-boot & vars into SPI flash * SPL/U-boot or EDK2 + vars into QSPI I assume 64KB for SPL, <500KB for SPL+Uboot, and 1MB for EDK2. QSPI: 1MB $0.67 2MB $0.70 16MB $1.62 (PINE A64-LTS) 133MHz == 66MB/s U-boot, 500KB in 7ms EDK2, 1MB in 14ms SPI: 128KB $0.28 1MB $0.33 104Mhz == 13MB/s SPL only, 64KB in 5ms U-boot, 500KB in 38ms I2C: ID only 256x8 $0.09 BBB etc 4Kx8 $0.13 32bytes @100KHz = 2.5ms Note that on PocketBeagle the I2C cost is already baked into the SIP so you can't subtract this cost from the cost of the SPI flash. This is a legacy issue but does so that buy-in takes time to filter down. Would a future SIP include an SPI flash? If you do then you need to fix how big. WRT C3: State-full and brickable As long as the SOC supports multiple bootmodes and the board adds a button or switch to select a recovery mode, this can be handled. BeagleBone black boots from eMMC (which is brickable) but holding a button at power up causes it to ignore everything in eMMC and boot form uSD. The uSD in this recovery mode need not be EBBR compliant (but I would like to allow it to be.) PocketBeagle like board would need to add a jumper or similar. C4: Board maker buy-in Probably the biggest barrier. Must show value of EBBR on legacy boards before people see the value. But if legacy works OK then why change? Bill ---------------- William A. Mills Chief Technologist, Open Solutions, SDO Texas Instruments, Inc. 20450 Century Blvd Germantown MD 20878 240-643-0836

5 years, 10 months

not be able to attend today's call

by Udit Kumar

Hi Grant/All, I will not be able to attend today's call For issue#10, I sent v1 patch , and for issue#9 , I will follow over email. Thanks Udit

5 years, 10 months

Issue#9 Document hardware need (if any)

by Udit Kumar

Hi At present, I don't see any specific hardware requirement for EBBR except ARMv8 CPU. Current document covers it very well. IMO, we can deferred this ticket. Thoughts ? Regards Udit

5 years, 10 months

[PATCH] Describe protective partitioning for platforms using shared storage

by Daniel Thompson

Fixes: #3 Fixed: #8 Signed-off-by: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson(a)linaro.org> --- Notes: This patch tries to capture contributions from a long a varied discussion. I hope I haven't missed anything major. Thanks to all the contributors to this topic so far! source/ebbr.rst | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+) diff --git a/source/ebbr.rst b/source/ebbr.rst index 40f03f173bd9..30a9c6ac2666 100644 --- a/source/ebbr.rst +++ b/source/ebbr.rst @@ -185,6 +185,53 @@ System Volume Format -------------------- The system firmware must support GPT partitioning. +It may optionally also support MBR partitioning. + +On systems where the system firmware binaries reside on the System Volume then +the System Volume must be pre-configured with a partition table and include +protective partitions to reduce risk of accidental destruction of the system +firmware. + +All pre-configured partition tables must use GPT partitioning unless +some immutable feature of the platform (such as a mask programmed boot ROM) +makes this impossible; on such platforms MBR partitioning may be +used as an alternative. + +GPT partitioning +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ + +Protective partitions should have the Platform Required Attribute Flag set +unless some immutable feature of the platform makes this impossible. + +It is recommended that automatic system disk partitioning utilities +preserve Platform Required partitions as is, and that manual disk +partitioning utilities provide warnings and/or other safe guards to +reduce risk of accidental removal. + +It is recommended that an implementer on a platform where Platform Required +cannot be set contribute a list of Partition type GUIDs for protective +partitions to the table below. It is further recommended that disk partitioning +utilities treat such partitions in the same manner as those with the Platform +Required Attribute Flag set. + ++--------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+ +| Partition type GUID | Comment | ++======================================+=======================================+ +| 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000 | Unused entry (example; do not honour) | ++--------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+ + +MBR partitioning +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ + +Protective partitions should have a partition type of 0xF8 unless some +immutable feature of the platform makes this impossible. + +It is recommended that disk partitioning utilities treat such +partitions in the same manner as GPT partitions with the Platform +Required Attribute Flag set. + +It is strongly recommended that protective partitions with a type other +than 0xF8 be placed within 1MB of the start of the disk. UEFI Boot Services ================== -- 2.17.0

5 years, 10 months

[PATCH v1] Issue#10 Add EBBR compliance test

by Udit Kumar

v1: Changes from first version Reword and reorder the text This patch adds a appendix for EBBR compliance test. Signed-off-by: Udit Kumar <udit.kumar(a)nxp.com> --- source/ebbr.rst | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+) diff --git a/source/ebbr.rst b/source/ebbr.rst index 40f03f1..9dc6a01 100644 --- a/source/ebbr.rst +++ b/source/ebbr.rst @@ -557,6 +557,34 @@ Service UEFI § EFI_ISCSI_INITIATOR_NAME_PROTOCOL 16.2 ========================================== ====== +******************************************* +APPENDIX E - EBBR Compliance Tests +******************************************* + +EBBR compliance test suite will be used to ensure EBBR compliance of +platform firmware. + +These tests will be carried out at two levels + +1. Firmware level + +2. OS level + +At firmware level, first level of tests will ensure that platform firmware +is implementing UEFI interfaces. +For this, EBBR compliance test suite will take leverage from UEFI SCT. +UEFI Self Certification Tests (SCTs) test the UEFI implementation requirements defined by EBBR. +To build UEFI SCT, please refer https://github.com/UEFI/UEFI-SCT + +Apart from UEFI SCT, Some EBBR specific tests may be developed. + +At OS level, Firmware Test Suite (FWTS) will be used, for more information +please refer https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FirmwareTestSuite + +In future, above tests will be integrated into EBBR test kit. + + + .. note:: Support for iSCSI is only required on machines that lack persistent storage, such as a, HDD. This configuration is intended for thin clients and compute-only nodes -- 1.9.1

5 years, 11 months

Re: [PATCH v2 1/8] driver core: make deferring probe after init optional

by Frank Rowand

On 05/24/18 11:18, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 12:50:17PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > >> Subsystems or drivers may opt-in to this behavior by calling >> driver_deferred_probe_check_init_done() instead of just returning >> -EPROBE_DEFER. They may use additional information from DT or kernel's >> config to decide whether to continue to defer probe or not. > > Should userspace have some involvement in this decision? It knows if > it's got any intention of loading modules for example. Kernel config > checks might be good enough, though it's going to be a pain to work out > if the relevant driver is built as a module for example. > A parallel issue is that loading an overlay could provide the resource that will allow the deferred probe to complete. (That is, once we finish implementing the run time overlays feature.) -Frank

5 years, 11 months

[PATCH v2 0/8] Make deferring probe forever optional

by Rob Herring

This series came out of a discussion on the ARM boot-architecture list[1] about DT forwards and backwards compatibility issues. There are issues with newer DTs breaking on older, stable kernels. Some of these are difficult to solve, but cases of optional devices not having kernel support should be solvable. I tested this on a RPi3 B with the pinctrl driver forced off. With this change, the MMC/SD and UART drivers can function without the pinctrl driver. v2: - Add a DT property for pinctrl to flag using defaults - Add a debug timeout to stop deferring some number of seconds after initcalls are done (giving modules a chance to load) - Split pinctrl support to its own patch - WARN when we stop deferring probe for a device - Add IOMMU support - Add PM domain support Rob [1] https://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/boot-architecture/2018-April/000466.html Rob Herring (8): driver core: make deferring probe after init optional driver core: add a deferred probe timeout dt-bindings: pinctrl: add a 'pinctrl-use-default' property arm: dts: bcm283x: mark the UART pin muxing nodes with pinctrl-use-default pinctrl: optionally stop deferring probe at end of initcalls iommu: Stop deferring probe at end of initcalls iommu: Remove IOMMU_OF_DECLARE PM / Domains: Stop deferring probe at the end of initcall .../admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 7 +++ .../bindings/pinctrl/pinctrl-bindings.txt | 6 +++ arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm283x.dtsi | 2 + drivers/base/dd.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++ drivers/base/power/domain.c | 2 +- drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c | 2 - drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c | 7 --- drivers/iommu/exynos-iommu.c | 2 - drivers/iommu/ipmmu-vmsa.c | 3 -- drivers/iommu/msm_iommu.c | 2 - drivers/iommu/of_iommu.c | 21 +-------- drivers/iommu/qcom_iommu.c | 2 - drivers/iommu/rockchip-iommu.c | 2 - drivers/pinctrl/devicetree.c | 14 ++++-- include/linux/device.h | 2 + include/linux/of_iommu.h | 4 -- 16 files changed, 73 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-) -- 2.17.0

5 years, 11 months

Re: [PATCH v2 1/8] driver core: make deferring probe after init optional

by Robin Murphy

On 24/05/18 19:18, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 12:50:17PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > >> Subsystems or drivers may opt-in to this behavior by calling >> driver_deferred_probe_check_init_done() instead of just returning >> -EPROBE_DEFER. They may use additional information from DT or kernel's >> config to decide whether to continue to defer probe or not. > > Should userspace have some involvement in this decision? It knows if > it's got any intention of loading modules for example. Kernel config > checks might be good enough, though it's going to be a pain to work out > if the relevant driver is built as a module for example. Arguably userspace has some control over that already, as in many cases it can just unbind and reprobe the consumer driver after loading the provider driver (in my silly IOMMU-drivers-as-modules PoC a while ago I was delighted to find that it can really be that simple). It's a bit harder when the device is the primary console or root filesystem, but I think that's effectively just another variant of the "defer until a module is loaded" chicken-and-egg problem. Robin.

5 years, 11 months

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

boot-architecture May 2018