- boot-architecture - lists.linaro.org

Notes (brief) from System DT call: OpenAMP bindings

by Tomas Evensen

Here are some brief notes from the meeting. If nothing else as a showcase on how much we miss Nathalie when she is on vacation 😉 Krzysztof Kepa – GE Mathieu Poirier – Linaro Etsam Anjum – Mentor Anrnoud Pouliquen – ST Loic Pallardy - ST Suman Anna - TI Dan Milea – Wind River Mark Dapoz – Wind River Tomas Evensen – Xilinx Stefano Stabellini – Xilinx Bruce Ashfield – Xilinx Ed Mooring – Xilinx Ben Levinsky - Xilinx Stefano went through slides. Overall idea: 1. Specify remoteproc channels with minimal information in System-DT in a way that is as common as possible for all vendors. In particular, we are avoiding to have to specify the same memory regions in more than one place. A resource group is specially marked to contain most information. 2. Use Lopper to create the vendor specific remoteproc specification Generating reserved-memory, etc. information that has duplicate information. For the time being, no plans to unify the vendor specific information that goes into the traditional device tree for Linux 3. Later (or in parallel), but without making it a gating item, start discussions on what we can do to unify the vendor specific information in the traditional DT Discussion about how TI and ST might generate their specific information from this specification. Stefano to send out examples and slides. Ben: Xilinx backend to Lopper is upstreamed and available as an example. Might change as upstreaming continues. Question: * How do we configure VirtIO? From: nathalie(a)xilinx.com When: 8:00 AM - 9:00 AM August 31, 2020 Subject: [System-dt] System DT call: OpenAMP bindings Location: webex CAUTION: This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. Hi all, The OpenAMP-remoteproc working group is looking forward to discuss OpenAMP bindings with the System DT working group & all others interested in System DT. Best regards, Nathalie C. Chan King Choy Program Manager focused on Open Source & Community Meeting number (access code): 145 853 2028 Meeting password: NgTwf4r8R$3 Monday, August 31, 2020 8:00 am | (UTC-07:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) | 1 hr Join meeting<https://xilinx.webex.com/xilinx/j.php?MTID=mcd4ad9bca009dfef38671c26d5a1d301> Canada toll free 1-844-426-4405 France toll free 0800-912-485 India toll free 000-800-040-1016 Sweden toll free 020-033-6721 UK toll free 08000315372 United States Toll Free 1-844-621-3956 Global call-in numbers<https://xilinx.webex.com/xilinx/globalcallin.php?MTID=m370fae0984a8792a3592…> | Toll-free calling restrictions<https://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf> This email and any attachments are intended for the sole use of the named recipient(s) and contain(s) confidential information that may be proprietary, privileged or copyrighted under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy, or forward this email message or any attachments. Delete this email message and any attachments immediately.

6 years, 1 month

3
2
0 0

[PATCH] EBBR: ResetSystem has return type void

by Heinrich Schuchardt

Closes: #50 ResetSystem() has return type void. So it cannot return EFI_UNSUPPORTED. Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk(a)gmx.de> --- source/chapter2-uefi.rst | 7 ++++--- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/source/chapter2-uefi.rst b/source/chapter2-uefi.rst index 2add2de..74ef70e 100644 --- a/source/chapter2-uefi.rst +++ b/source/chapter2-uefi.rst @@ -209,9 +209,10 @@ ResetSystem() is required to be implemented in boot services, but it is optional for runtime services. During runtime services, the operating system should first attempt to use ResetSystem() to reset the system. -If firmware doesn't support ResetSystem() during runtime services, -then the call will immediately return EFI_UNSUPPORTED, and the OS should -fall back to an architecture or platform specific reset mechanism. + +If firmware doesn't support ResetSystem() during runtime services, then the call +will immediately return, and the OS should fall back to an architecture or +platform specific reset mechanism. On AArch64 platforms implementing [PSCI]_, if ResetSystem() is not implemented then the Operating System should fall -- 2.28.0

6 years, 1 month

3
2
0 0

Re: [System-dt] Notes (brief) from System DT call: OpenAMP bindings

by Stefano Stabellini

On Mon, 31 Aug 2020, Bjorn Andersson via System-dt wrote: > On Mon 31 Aug 16:04 UTC 2020, Tomas Evensen via System-dt wrote: > > > Here are some brief notes from the meeting. > > > > If nothing else as a showcase on how much we miss Nathalie when she is on vacation ???? > > > > Krzysztof Kepa – GE > > Mathieu Poirier – Linaro > > Etsam Anjum – Mentor > > Anrnoud Pouliquen – ST > > Loic Pallardy - ST > > Suman Anna - TI > > Dan Milea – Wind River > > Mark Dapoz – Wind River > > Tomas Evensen – Xilinx > > Stefano Stabellini – Xilinx > > Bruce Ashfield – Xilinx > > Ed Mooring – Xilinx > > Ben Levinsky - Xilinx > > > > Stefano went through slides. > > Overall idea: > > > > 1. Specify remoteproc channels with minimal information in System-DT in a way that is as common as possible for all vendors. > > In particular, we are avoiding to have to specify the same memory regions in more than one place. A resource group is specially marked to contain most information. > > 2. Use Lopper to create the vendor specific remoteproc specification > > Generating reserved-memory, etc. information that has duplicate information. > > For the time being, no plans to unify the vendor specific information that goes into the traditional device tree for Linux > > 3. Later (or in parallel), but without making it a gating item, start discussions on what we can do to unify the vendor specific information in the traditional DT > > Can anyone point me to some examples of vendor specific information > referred to here? Some of the other attendees might have better examples than this. The ones I was mentioning this morning are the "mboxes" and "mbox-names" properties you can see in the "output.txt" example. Also the memory regions listed under the "memory-region" property and under "reserved-memory".

6 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

Re: [System-dt] Notes (brief) from System DT call: OpenAMP bindings

by Stefano Stabellini

On Mon, 31 Aug 2020, Tomas Evensen via System-dt wrote: > Stefano to send out examples and slides I am attaching the slides and examples, where: - input.txt is the system device tree snippet, input to lopper - output.txt is the traditional device tree snipper, output from lopper

6 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

Re: [System-dt] Notes (brief) from System DT call: OpenAMP bindings

by Bjorn Andersson

On Mon 31 Aug 16:04 UTC 2020, Tomas Evensen via System-dt wrote: > Here are some brief notes from the meeting. > > If nothing else as a showcase on how much we miss Nathalie when she is on vacation ???? > > Krzysztof Kepa – GE > Mathieu Poirier – Linaro > Etsam Anjum – Mentor > Anrnoud Pouliquen – ST > Loic Pallardy - ST > Suman Anna - TI > Dan Milea – Wind River > Mark Dapoz – Wind River > Tomas Evensen – Xilinx > Stefano Stabellini – Xilinx > Bruce Ashfield – Xilinx > Ed Mooring – Xilinx > Ben Levinsky - Xilinx > > Stefano went through slides. > Overall idea: > > 1. Specify remoteproc channels with minimal information in System-DT in a way that is as common as possible for all vendors. > In particular, we are avoiding to have to specify the same memory regions in more than one place. A resource group is specially marked to contain most information. > 2. Use Lopper to create the vendor specific remoteproc specification > Generating reserved-memory, etc. information that has duplicate information. > For the time being, no plans to unify the vendor specific information that goes into the traditional device tree for Linux > 3. Later (or in parallel), but without making it a gating item, start discussions on what we can do to unify the vendor specific information in the traditional DT Can anyone point me to some examples of vendor specific information referred to here? Regards, Bjorn > > Discussion about how TI and ST might generate their specific information from this specification. > > Stefano to send out examples and slides. > Ben: Xilinx backend to Lopper is upstreamed and available as an example. Might change as upstreaming continues. > > Question: > * How do we configure VirtIO? > > > > From: nathalie(a)xilinx.com > When: 8:00 AM - 9:00 AM August 31, 2020 > Subject: [System-dt] System DT call: OpenAMP bindings > Location: webex > > > CAUTION: This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. > > Hi all, > > The OpenAMP-remoteproc working group is looking forward to discuss OpenAMP bindings with the System DT working group & all others interested in System DT. > > Best regards, > > Nathalie C. Chan King Choy > Program Manager focused on Open Source & Community > > Meeting number (access code): 145 853 2028 > > Meeting password: NgTwf4r8R$3 > > > > Monday, August 31, 2020 > 8:00 am | (UTC-07:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) | 1 hr > > > > Join meeting<https://xilinx.webex.com/xilinx/j.php?MTID=mcd4ad9bca009dfef38671c26d5a1d301> > > > > Canada toll free 1-844-426-4405 > France toll free 0800-912-485 > India toll free 000-800-040-1016 > Sweden toll free 020-033-6721 > UK toll free 08000315372 > United States Toll Free 1-844-621-3956 > > Global call-in numbers<https://xilinx.webex.com/xilinx/globalcallin.php?MTID=m370fae0984a8792a3592…> | Toll-free calling restrictions<https://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf> > This email and any attachments are intended for the sole use of the named recipient(s) and contain(s) confidential information that may be proprietary, privileged or copyrighted under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy, or forward this email message or any attachments. Delete this email message and any attachments immediately. > -- > System-dt mailing list > System-dt(a)lists.openampproject.org > https://lists.openampproject.org/mailman/listinfo/system-dt

6 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

DTE call this Wednesday

by François Ozog

Hi, This Wednesday agenda is: - Presentation of RiscV DT by Atish Patra - Proposal of DT authentication/identification/format PoC by Joakim/FF Cordially, FF

6 years, 1 month

1
1
0 0

Restarting EBBR biweekly meetings

by Grant Likely

It has been a long time since there has been a regular EBBR review meeting, and with the amount of activity that has happened in the last year I think it is time to start meeting again. I'd like to start talking about content for EBBR v1.0+. A biweekly cadence seems about right to me, but we can discuss when we start meetings again. Would Monday, 31 Aug at 16:00BST, 08:00PST work? Email me privately if you want me to send you a calendar invite. Discussion topics: - EBBR testing progress - EBBR Scope -- doing a better job to describe the purpose of EBBR - Tightening requirements as U-Boot implementation matures (make fewer things optional) - Security requirements - Secure boot and secure capsule update - issue review - Signing requirements on dtbs and variables Send me an email if you want to add to the agenda, or add an issue to the github page: https://github.com/arm-software/ebbr/issues g. ---- Time: Every second Monday starting 31 Aug at 16:00BST, 08:00PST Join Zoom Meeting https://armltd.zoom.us/j/92081365511?pwd=SFZpRitXUEp3Zy9GM0h3UUZ1b1pnUT09 Meeting ID: 920 8136 5511 Password: 490324 One tap mobile +14086380968,,92081365511#,,#,490324# US (San Jose) +16465189805,,92081365511#,,#,490324# US (New York) Dial by your location +1 408 638 0968 US (San Jose) +1 646 518 9805 US (New York) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) Meeting ID: 920 8136 5511 Password: 490324 Find your local number: https://armltd.zoom.us/u/adYiWaDyys 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.

6 years, 1 month

1
2
0 0

Trusting DT

by François Ozog

Hi, I just updated the technical report <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CLkhLRaz_zcCq44DLGmPZQFPbYHOC6nzPowaL0X…> with a section on "Trusting DT" that is the result of my analysis of the discussion we had (not what I presented). Please comment, correct, update... Cordially, FF -- François-Frédéric Ozog | *Director Linaro Edge & Fog Computing Group* T: +33.67221.6485 francois.ozog(a)linaro.org | Skype: ffozog

6 years, 1 month

2
3
0 0

System DT call: OpenAMP bindings

by Nathalie Chan King Choy

Hi all, The OpenAMP-remoteproc working group is looking forward to discuss OpenAMP bindings with the System DT working group & all others interested in System DT. Best regards, Nathalie C. Chan King Choy Program Manager focused on Open Source & Community Meeting number (access code): 145 853 2028 Meeting password: NgTwf4r8R$3 Monday, August 31, 2020 8:00 am | (UTC-07:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) | 1 hr Join meeting<https://xilinx.webex.com/xilinx/j.php?MTID=mcd4ad9bca009dfef38671c26d5a1d301> Canada toll free 1-844-426-4405 France toll free 0800-912-485 India toll free 000-800-040-1016 Sweden toll free 020-033-6721 UK toll free 08000315372 United States Toll Free 1-844-621-3956 Global call-in numbers<https://xilinx.webex.com/xilinx/globalcallin.php?MTID=m370fae0984a8792a3592…> | Toll-free calling restrictions<https://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf>

6 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

Adding RISC-V to EBBR

by Atish Patra

Hi All, We are interested in adopting EBBR as the boot specification for the embedded RISC-V platforms. We firmly believe that EBBR is a very well defined specification for boot requirement and there is no need for reinventing the wheel for RISC-V. Hence, this is a thread to discuss all the requirements for adding RISC-V to EBBR. Here is my current understanding. Please correct me if I am wrong. Logistic Requirement: 1. As per the contribution guidelines[1], patches should be sent to boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org. and the specification will be hosted under "ARM-software" Github. I am hoping that introducing RISC-V related changes are okay with the current maintainers. 2. The specification is licensed under Creative Commons. The RISC-V related changes will refer to some of the RISC-V specifications as well. AFAIK, there shouldn't be an issue with that. 3. It should be okay to add other copyrights in addition to "Arm Limited and Contributors". Technical Requirement: 1. Software status: a. UEFI support for RISC-V Linux kernel is already available in the mailing list[2]. The targeted upstream merge is the 5.10 merge window. b. U-Boot already supports UEFI for RISC-V. c. EDK2 upstreaming is currently under progress [3] as well. Is it okay to start sending patches for EBBR RISC-V related changes now or do we need to wait for EDK2 and Linux kernel patches to be available upstream ? 2. RISC-V related sections in EBBR a. UEFI: Currently, RISC-V doesn't support a EFI_RESET_SYSTEM boot service as firmware doesn't have a standard way to reset the system. There is a proposal to add a system reset function to Supervisor Binary Specification(SBI) which can be mapped to EFI_RESET_SYSTEM by the firmware. Apart from that, I believe RISC-V supports all UEFI boot and run time services mandated by EBBR. Is it a blocker for RISC-V EBBR compatibility? b. RISC-V Multiprocessor Startup Protocol: This section will contain the details of booting protocol for RISC-V and mandatory RISC-V specifications that need to be implemented. c. Firmware Storage: AFAIK, RISC-V platforms are already compatible with this. Please let me know if I missed something or oversimplified any requirement. We want to make RISC-V compatible with EBBR sooner than later and ready work on any missing pieces if any. [1] https://github.com/ARM-software/ebbr/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.rst [2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/8/19/1252 [3] https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/63831?p=,,,20,0,0,0::Created,,RISC-V… [4] https://lists.riscv.org/g/tech-unixplatformspec/message/49?p=,,,20,0,0,0::r… -- Regards, Atish

6 years, 1 month

10
24
0 0

UN regulations about cybersecurity and automotive

by François Ozog

At some point, the following regulations and forming standard ISO 24089 will impact how we implement firmware updates and securely boot OSes in vehicles. https://www.unece.org/info/media/presscurrent-press-h/transport/2020/un-reg… https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/doc/2020/wp29grva/ECE-TRANS-WP29-… http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/doc/2019/wp29grva/ECE-TRANS-WP29-G… Cheers FF

6 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

EBBR v1.0.1 released

by Grant Likely

Minor release to clean up a few problems. Thanks to all who helped get the text updated. https://github.com/ARM-software/ebbr/releases/tag/v1.0.1 Cheers, g.

6 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

Fwd: There’s a Hole in the Boot - Eclypsium

by Joakim Bech

Hi, Yet another security issue surfaced yesterday, see this blog post about it https://eclypsium.com/2020/07/29/theres-a-hole-in-the-boot/ When I was reading it I cannot avoid seeing similarities to what I've tried to raise in the DT(E) discussions. I.e., firmware run-time exploits running after signatures have been verified successfully (slide 27, 28 [1]) can be devastating and therefore I've tried to suggest that each component verifies the DTB that it gets from the previous firmware component (slide 29, 30 [1]), alternatively and probably better ... doing something like a measured boot (including DTB's) where you compute a running hash spanning across all firmware (+configuration) being loaded. Some quotes from the blog post: > Almost all signed versions of GRUB2 are vulnerable, meaning virtually > every Linux distribution is affected. We don't want to read something similar about DTS/DTB in the future. > Additionally, as we will show in this blog post, a vulnerability in the boot > process that enables arbitrary code execution can allow attackers to control > the boot process and operating system, even when secure boot signatures are verified. Confirm my concerns. > In the course of Eclypsium’s analysis, we have identified a buffer overflow vulnerability > in the way that GRUB2 parses content from the GRUB2 config file (grub.cfg). > Of note: The GRUB2 config file is a text file and typically is not signed like other files > and executables. This vulnerability enables arbitrary code execution within GRUB2 and > thus control over the booting of the operating system. As a result, an attacker could > modify the contents of the GRUB2 configuration file to ensure that attack code is run > before the operating system is loaded. In this way, attackers gain persistence on the device. Replace "GRUB2" with "DT" and "grub.cfg" with "*.dts/dtb" in the quote above and we have another potential future quote about DT security issues. A solid, useable and robust solution for problems like this might be complex to realize, but I think it's worth continuing to look into what can be done, since it seems risky to continue loading and running "DT code" like we're doing in many places today (and it's not only DT that is subject to this, regular firmware suffers with the same kind of issues). I.e., I'm going to raise this again in future DT(E) calls. [1] https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1CvKBBZ33ggzyhP2ub8iZ410I_KGrFjHftZL… <https://eclypsium.com/2020/07/29/theres-a-hole-in-the-boot/> Regards, Joakim

6 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

July 22nd meeting notes

by François Ozog

Attendees François-Frédéric Ozog (Linaro) Frank Rowand Simon Glass (Google) Ilias Apalodimas (Linaro) Atish Patra (Western Digital) Mark Brown (Arm) Heinrich Schuchardt CVS Arnd Bergmann Rob Herring (Arm) Loic Pallardy (ST) Poonam (NXP) Ruchika Loic Pallardy (ST) Don Harbin(linaro) Presentation SLIDE 2 Francois: if we want authentication, we can’t do fix up Simon: what is fix up? Can’t change DT or ok to change it? Francois: can orchestrate transition, [edit as typing notes: changing is not OK because you can’t identify the scope of change; adding a new node may be acceptable - because scope is easy to frame] Simon: code doing the fixup is signed , so it may be a signal that the changes are OK; don’t know how to pass that to Linux. In principle you should rely on signed code to make changes Francois: [rephrasing at note editing] two trust models 1) implicit - trust because generating/updating code is signed 2) explicit - trust because you can check signature of the DT Heinrich: if the DT comes from file system, it should be signed; for DT embedded in signed code: no need to have a signature; signature for things from file but not from memory [at writing notes, I understand this as a DT fragment generated by FT-A in memory does not need to be signed] SLIDE 3 Francois: cold-plug by U-Boot, hotplug by OS Francois: Board DTB + cape DTBo + cape_on_board DTBo (pin muxing config, irq config…) Frank: Device removal triggers DT correspond node(s) removal? If so, then we should limiting a single device per overlay Francois: yes. It is also connected to device assignment. There should be a way to identify all nodes of a device in DT to actually simplify device assignment (to be discussed later in the deck) SLIDE 4 Lets use a special config DTBo (chosen…) Let’s get the parameters out of DT in local OS config (or worst case, in that config DTBo) Rob: problem with systems with loadable modules Arnd: can be passed on command line Rob: Greg KH say: don’t add module parameters Arnd: device specific parameters should be done via sysfs/ioctl; driver wide parameters could be as module parameters or boot command line Frank or it could be a “chosen” [editig time] Francois: for Linux, can we organize module parameters in modules.d are parsed when modules are statically linked? Let’s not use DT when we can avoid (OP-TEE bus to discover TAs) SLIDE 5 Francois: wherever we choose, we shall ensure backward compatibility SLIDE 6 DTB=base board + 1 DTBo per device Statically merge DTB + DTBos at compile time and keep metadata about the merge in a section of the new DT file format. SLIDE 7 Arnd/Simon: Right now the Android boot loader merges DTB/DTBos and passes one DTB to the kernel Simon: ChromeOS has a FIT image with multiple DTs, it selects one to pass to OS Arnd/Ilias: FIT is only understood by U-Boot Francois: wherever we choose, we shall ensure backward compatibility Arnd: It’s simpler to have a single DTB for the kernel Early kernel is not really powerful There are security advantages in signed DTBos Francois: I think the key question is decide on a model. Allow bootloaders to change the DTB and rely on signed DTBos? Simon: is either or ? [explicit vs implicit trust models], what is the threat model? Francois: yes, I think so. Heinrich: problem is wrong voltage in DT results in destroying the board Arnd: steal sensitive data Ilias: DoS can become a problem Ilias: signing per device (key mgmt complexity) ? or per device model (can compromise all devices of a model)? Francois: Who signs what is also a fundamental concept, because there might be different signing authorities Loic: That’s the current case wit ST devices Arnd: There’s 3 options here: Kernel with embedded DTB, if the kernel signature is checked, the DTB does not need to be checked The bootloader loads the kernel from a disk Nothing is checked Checking one of those makes no sense Simon: we have to be careful in not tying ourselves in a knot. There is *no* bidirectional root of trust. The model is that trust is built starting from the root of trust, the next level implicitly trusts the level that loaded it. Mark Brown: DT is used with EDK2 Loic: there is no direct boot from U-Boot to kernel, it is vouched by OP-TEE. security of co-processors requires the same model Hardware firewall (device and memory) can be leveraged to ensure full security DTE Project information portal: https://collaborate.linaro.org/display/DTE/DTE+Progress+Updates Security presentation: (listed in the portal, but copied here for simple access): https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1CvKBBZ33ggzyhP2ub8iZ410I_KGrFjHftZL…

6 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

DTE call this wednesday

by François Ozog

Hi, I think we have gathered enough knowledge in the Technical Report to try architecting DT evolution technologies. To that end, I'll kick start discussion with: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1jACxdO-3fDzSk5MEMUEmAu0iMjtp9Td7Xbb… Everyone has commenter capabilities in the document, so please use it. I am sure most of the proposals cannot be "decided on" during the call. But I'd like to come to a conclusion on one topic: whether or not fix ups are allowed. If we introduce signature of any form with DTB, then I believe fixups are not possible anymore. Cheers -- FF

6 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

2020-07-20 System DT call notes and action items

by Nathalie Chan King Choy

Hi all, The notes from today's call can be found on the OpenAMP Wiki at https://github.com/OpenAMP/open-amp/wiki/System-DT-Meeting-Notes-2020#2020J… The action items are: * Stefano to share slides * Xilinx and ST to discuss interconnect binding, considering that it could be expanded beyond QoS, and review Rob's earlier feedback to Benjamin on pin control * Stefano to check if configuration interface assumes that IDs are global * Stefano to work with Bruce to prototype something w/ Lopper to generate a bus firewall configuration table * Stefano to present openamp-remoteproc binding for System DT at next call @ Stefano, Loic, Rob, Ilias, Tomas (and anyone else who spoke, if I missed you): Please check if there are any errors or important omissions in what I captured for your parts. You can make corrections directly in the wiki page. Thanks & regards, Nathalie C. Chan King Choy Program Manager focused on Open Source and Community

6 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

System Device Tree call - July

by Nathalie Chan King Choy

[Invitation going out to both the sytem-dt list and the boot-architecture list, based on recommendation from Francois] Hi all, It has been a while since our last call, because work was happening on the 4th action item below. Now, there are some updates to present. The notes from the previous call can be found on the OpenAMP wiki at this link: https://github.com/OpenAMP/open-amp/wiki/System-DT-Meeting-Notes-2020 Action items from the previous call: * Nathalie sync up w/ Francois about who should be invited to System DT call (some individuals at DTE call didn't get this invitation) * Stefano to go back & discuss w/ Xilinx XMPU expert. * Stefano: Revisit wording of IDs * Stefano & Tomas to sync-up with Loic & Benjamin. Target for next System DT call to discuss how the 2 proposals combine. Include description of the use cases you're giving solution for. For info about the system-dt list, link to the archives, to unsubscribe yourself, or for someone to subscribe themselves, visit: https://lists.openampproject.org/mailman/listinfo/system-dt For information about the System Device Trees effort, including a link to the intro presentation from Linaro Connect SAN19: https://github.com/OpenAMP/open-amp/wiki/System-Device-Trees Best regards, Nathalie C. Chan King Choy Program Manager focused on Open Source and Community =================== Nathalie Chan King Choy is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. Topic: System DT call - July Time: Jul 20, 2020 08:00 AM Pacific Time (US and Canada) Join Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89143577824 Meeting ID: 891 4357 7824 One tap mobile +13126266799,,89143577824# US (Chicago) +13462487799,,89143577824# US (Houston) Dial by your location +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 646 558 8656 US (New York) +1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose) +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 301 715 8592 US (Germantown) +1 587 328 1099 Canada +1 647 374 4685 Canada +1 647 558 0588 Canada +1 778 907 2071 Canada +1 204 272 7920 Canada +1 438 809 7799 Canada +44 203 051 2874 United Kingdom +44 203 481 5237 United Kingdom +44 203 481 5240 United Kingdom +44 203 901 7895 United Kingdom +44 131 460 1196 United Kingdom +33 1 7037 9729 France +33 1 7095 0103 France +33 1 7095 0350 France +33 1 8699 5831 France +33 1 7037 2246 France +46 8 5050 0828 Sweden +46 8 5050 0829 Sweden +46 8 5052 0017 Sweden +46 850 539 728 Sweden +46 8 4468 2488 Sweden +46 8 5016 3827 Sweden Meeting ID: 891 4357 7824 Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/k6bFgrs5K

6 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Meeting notes from DTE June 24

by François Ozog

Hi, Here are the notes from our last meeting. (For next calls, it would be nice people take some notes in the shared scratch document so that we increase quality of them) Attendees Tom Rini Joakim Bech (Linaro) François-Frédéric Ozog (Linaro) Ilias Apalodimas (Linaro) Mark Brown (Arm) Heinrich Schuchardt Priyanka Jain (NXP) Jens Wiklander (Linaro) Arnd Bergmann CVS Atish Patra (Western Digital) Grant Likely (Arm) Etienne Carriere (ST) ==================================== I - RISC-V Atish from Western Digital has a 4 developer team on. Focus on standardized boot flows: - U-Boot SPL + U-Boot. - coreBoot + EDK2 ==================================== II - Technical report github Atul volunteered FF: What format to use ? RST? MD? Other? Heinrich: RST and MD are rendered by github. ==================================== III - Technical report outline and content updates A proposal to be made so that a minimal UEFI set of requirements is defined with DT support. Frank: Should not put DT spec in the UEFI forum FF: this is not the goal, the goal is to get references to DT in UEFI Need to ensure we have terminology that can be applied to all architectures (for instance Arm+TFA+U-Boot and RISC-V+U-Boot SPL+U-Boot). Please make proposals for content including new sections for the use cases. ==================================== IV- Overlays presentation Franks Presentation notes: https://elinux.org/Frank%27s_Evolving_Overlay_Thoughts https://elinux.org/images/0/03/Elce_2018_dt_bof.pdf https://elinux.org/Device_Tree_Reference -> OverLays Overlay made simple with DTC extensions: use a reference to define the place in the tree where the update is to be made: &{/path/to/node} { <overlay definition> } Use cases: Hot swap Expansion slots (beaglebone) FPGAs (load from kernel to FPGA; led by Altera/Xilinx) Not too dynamic, in particular because there are still memory leaks Use of “apply overlay by the bootload” helps reducing the number of DTS/DTB files to deal with. plugable CPU: overlay is a solution few terms to define/standardise/clarify by frank: Cold-swap = ? < describe the actual use-case in simple terms > Hot-swap = ? < describe the actual use-case in simple terms > Real hot-swap will be difficult to support. Another use case for “hot-swap” is a developer helper to change parameter “dynamically” to avoid a full reboot. FF: DT event may be a wrong way to deal with dynamism: using bus events to trigger changes seem more natural Grant: event code is fragile, prefer pre-boot control

6 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

June 24th call

by François Ozog

Hi, I have updated the document to reflect what I heard from the remainder of the last call. Please have a look and comment. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CLkhLRaz_zcCq44DLGmPZQFPbYHOC6nzPowaL0X… If you volunteer to edit content, please ask me and I'll give you edit rights on the document. Shall we make a github backed document? If so, any volunteer to make it happen? Agenda for June 24th: - DT Overlay status presentation by Frank Rowand. - Document review and trying to close all comments. Cordially -- FF

6 years, 3 months

3
4
0 0

[RFC] SMC yielding Trusted OS call discrepancies

by François Ozog

Hi, Trusted OSes such as OP-TEE or QSEE are using SMC yielding function numbers in the 0x32000000-0x3200006F range. The SMC calling conventions are specified in DEN0028 which has currently three versions (see below). To the best of my understanding, the use of this range is: - compliant with version a - acceptable with version b - somewhat contradicting with version c version a analysis: table 6.1 states that the trusted OS standard calls should be in the range "0x02000000-0x7FFFFFFF", so the selected range is good. Section 2.1 that defines a bit structure for function numbers for both yielding and fast calls and the range is compatible. The range covered by table 6.1 for Trusted OS calls is however much bigger that the bit structure definition. As a result a 0x02000000 call is a yielding Trusted OS call as per table 6.1 but a Yielding SiP call as per section 2.1. version b analysis: table 6.2 states that the trusted OS yielding calls should be in the range "0x02000000-0x1FFFFFFF" and that the range "0x20000000-0x7FFFFFFF" is "reserved for future expansion of Trusted OS Yielding Calls". So the range is acceptable but poorly selected. There is the same inconsistency as version a when it comes to qualifying a 0x02000000 call: table 6.2 says it is a Trusted OS yielding call, section 2.5 says it is a yielding SiP call. version c analysis: section 2.5.1 now clearly states that the bit structure is only for Fast calls. and both section 2.52 and table 6.2 state that Trusted OS calls should be in the range "0x02000000-0x1FFFFFFF". both section 2.5.2 and 6 qualify the 0x02000000 call as a Trusted OS yielding call. I think that version a and b have inconsistent between chapter 2 and 6. Version c brings internal consistency but seems to be not in alignment with best practices. I guess there is a need to both address internal document inconsistency and better reflect existing products. Any thoughts? -FF version a: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OclQZk0o28n5ZUIYeTuFICbLiGWzOvxH/view?usp=… version b: https://static.docs.arm.com/den0028/b/ARM_DEN0028B_SMC_Calling_Convention.p… version c: https://static.docs.arm.com/den0028/c/Q1-ARM-DEN-0028_SMC_Calling_Conventio…

6 years, 3 months

2
2
0 0

DTE: PCIe memory mappings

by Heinrich Schuchardt

Hello Francois, in our last meeting you suggested to investigate deeper what meaning modularization in device trees could mean. One example I have seen is the definition of memory mappings for PCIe. If for you example you look in the device tree of the Raspberry Pi 4 you can find that there is an entry: pcie@7d500000 { ranges = < 0x2000000 0x00 0xf8000000 0x06 0x00 0x00 0x4000000>; }; The ranges property defines the mapping MEM 0x600000000..0x603ffffff -> 0xf8000000 and thereby the address and size of the memory windows used for communication. On some boards e.g. the MacchitoBin you have multiple platform devices each with its own ranges definitions. Here are the values in May 2019: pcie@f2600000 { ranges = < 0x81000000 0x0 0xf9000000 0x0 0xf9000000 0x0 0x10000 0x82000000 0x0 0xf6000000 0x0 0xf6000000 0x0 0xf00000>; } pcie@f2620000 { ranges = < 0x81000000 0x0 0xf9010000 0x0 0xf9010000 0x0 0x10000 0x82000000 0x0 0xf7000000 0x0 0xf7000000 0x0 0xf00000>; } pcie@f2640000 { ranges = < 0x81000000 0x0 0xf9020000 0x0 0xf9020000 0x0 0x10000 0x82000000 0x0 0xf8000000 0x0 0xf8000000 0x0 0xf00000>; } On my MacchitoBin the GPU card was not usable because the memory window was too small to create the required BARs. Changing the window size and location solved the problem, commit d3446b266a8c ("arm64: dts: marvell: mcbin: enlarge PCI memory window"). The problem with the current way in qhich PCI devices are declared is that they do not indicate requirements and capabilities and let the software figure out a good mapping. But instead fixed mappings are hard-coded into the device-tree. So for me this would be one element of DT modularization: The description of a device should provide capabilities and requirements and avoid fixed software settings. Best regards Heinrich

6 years, 3 months

3
2
0 0

[PATCH] Editorial fixups to devicetree requirements

by Grant Likely

Address comments from Heinrich Schuchardt: - Typo fixes - Be specific to say "Devicetree Blob" - Add comment on rationale for choosing EfiACPIReclaimMemory for DTB Cc: Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk(a)gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely(a)arm.com> --- source/chapter2-uefi.rst | 8 +++++--- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/source/chapter2-uefi.rst b/source/chapter2-uefi.rst index c9c0101..066fefb 100644 --- a/source/chapter2-uefi.rst +++ b/source/chapter2-uefi.rst @@ -81,9 +81,9 @@ A UEFI system that complies with this specification may provide the additional tables via the EFI Configuration Table. Compliant systems are required to provide one, but not both, of the following -tables. +tables: -- An Advanced Configuration and Power Interface [ACPI]_ table, or +- an Advanced Configuration and Power Interface [ACPI]_ table, or - a Devicetree [DTSPEC]_ system description EBBR systems must not provide both ACPI and Devicetree @@ -96,11 +96,13 @@ Devicetree ^^^^^^^^^^ If firmware provides a Devicetree system description then it must be provided -in Flattened Devicetree (DTB) format version 17 or higher as described in +in Flattened Devicetree Blob (DTB) format version 17 or higher as described in [DTSPEC]_ § 5.1. The following GUID must be used in the EFI system table ([UEFI]_ § 4) to identify the DTB. The DTB must be contained in memory of type EfiACPIReclaimMemory. +EfiACPIReclaimMemory was chosen to match the recommendation for ACPI +tables which fulfill the same task as the DTB. .. code-block:: c -- 2.20.1

6 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

EBBR v1.0.1-rc1

by Grant Likely

I'd like to do a point release of EBBR in the near future. There is an important change to how RuntimeServicesSupported is described in the UEFI spec that needs to be adjusted in EBBR, and the DTB UUID was missing. The rest of the changes are minor editorial and typo fixes. I've tagged v1.0.1-rc1 in github for review. Full diff is below. Please review and comment. Thanks, g. --- .travis.yml | 82 +++++++++++++++++------------------------ CONTRIBUTING.rst | 23 +----------- source/chapter2-uefi.rst | 40 +++++++++++++++++--- source/chapter3-secureworld.rst | 6 +-- source/index.rst | 3 ++ source/references.rst | 10 ++--- 6 files changed, 81 insertions(+), 83 deletions(-) --- diff --git a/.travis.yml b/.travis.yml index 3688a67..4a63cb0 100644 --- a/.travis.yml +++ b/.travis.yml @@ -1,63 +1,49 @@ sudo: false dist: trusty - cache: apt: true - env: global: - - SPHINXBUILD=~/.local/bin/sphinx-build - - DIFF_COMMIT=v0.5 - + - SPHINXBUILD=~/.local/bin/sphinx-build + - secure: 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 git: depth: false - addons: apt: packages: - - python-pip - - latexmk - - libalgorithm-diff-perl - - texlive - - texlive-latex-extra - - texlive-humanities - - texlive-generic-recommended - - graphviz - - texlive-generic-extra - + - python-pip + - latexmk + - libalgorithm-diff-perl + - texlive + - texlive-latex-extra + - texlive-humanities + - texlive-generic-recommended + - graphviz + - texlive-generic-extra install: - - pip install --user mako - - pip install --user Sphinx - -before_script: - - wget https://github.com/ftilmann/latexdiff/releases/download/1.2.1/latexdiff-1.2… - - tar xvf latexdiff-1.2.1.tar.gz - - export PATH=$PWD/latexdiff-1.2.1/:$PATH - +- pip install --user mako +- pip install --user Sphinx script: - - make latexpdf - - make html - - make singlehtml - +- make latexpdf +- make html +- make singlehtml before_deploy: - - cp build/latex/ebbr.pdf build/ebbr-$TRAVIS_TAG.pdf - +- cp build/latex/ebbr.pdf build/ebbr-$TRAVIS_TAG.pdf deploy: - - provider: releases - prerelease: true - api_key: - secure: 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 - file_glob: true - file: - - "build/ebbr-*.pdf" - skip_cleanup: true - on: - tags: true - branch: master - - provider: pages - github_token: $GITHUB_TOKEN - local_dir: "build/singlehtml" - skip_cleanup: true - on: - branch: master - +- provider: releases + prerelease: true + api_key: + secure: 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 + file_glob: true + file: + - build/ebbr-*.pdf + skip_cleanup: true + on: + tags: true + branch: master +- provider: pages + github_token: "$GITHUB_TOKEN" + local_dir: build/singlehtml + skip_cleanup: true + on: + branch: master diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.rst b/CONTRIBUTING.rst index a5643a3..7021f0f 100644 --- a/CONTRIBUTING.rst +++ b/CONTRIBUTING.rst @@ -8,35 +8,14 @@ Anyone may contribute to the EBBR project. Contributions are licensed under CC-BY-SA-4.0_ and must be made with a Developer Certificate of Origin (DCO_) attestation as described below. -EBBR discussion uses the boot-architecture_ and arm.ebbr-discuss mailing lists. -The 'official' list is arm.ebbr-discuss, but the list archives are not -yet public, so boot-architecture_ is being used to keep everything in -the open. +EBBR discussion uses the boot-architecture_ mailing list. * boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org -* arm.ebbr-discuss(a)arm.com Past discussions can be found in the boot-architecture-archive_. We use the IRC channel `#ebbr`_ on OFTC_. -There is a bi-weekly conference call to discuss EBBR topics on the 2nd -and 4th Tuesday of the month at 15:00 UTC/BST, 7:00 PST/PDT, 23:00/22:00 CST -(following UTC/BST daylight savings time shifts). -Anyone is welcome to join. - -- Online meeting: https://arm-onsite.webex.com/meet/gralik01 -- Phone - - - 1-408-792-6300 Call-in toll number (US/Canada) - - 1-877-668-4490 Call-in toll-free number (US/Canada) - - 44-203-478-5285 Call-in toll number (UK) - - 08-002061177 Call-in toll-free (UK) - - More access numbers: webex-global-numbers_ -- Access code: 809 053 990 - -.. _webex-global-numbers: https://arm-onsite.webex.com/cmp3300/webcomponents/widget/globalcallin/glob… - DCO Attestation --------------- diff --git a/source/chapter2-uefi.rst b/source/chapter2-uefi.rst index f6a5802..c9c0101 100644 --- a/source/chapter2-uefi.rst +++ b/source/chapter2-uefi.rst @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ platforms. UEFI Version ============ -This document uses version 2.7 of the UEFI specification [UEFI]_. +This document uses version 2.8 Errata A of the UEFI specification [UEFI]_. UEFI Compliance =============== @@ -86,12 +86,41 @@ tables. - An Advanced Configuration and Power Interface [ACPI]_ table, or - a Devicetree [DTSPEC]_ system description -As stated above, EBBR systems must not provide both ACPI and Devicetree +EBBR systems must not provide both ACPI and Devicetree tables at the same time. Systems that support both interfaces must provide a configuration mechanism to select either ACPI or Devicetree, and must ensure only the selected interface is provided to the OS loader. +Devicetree +^^^^^^^^^^ + +If firmware provides a Devicetree system description then it must be provided +in Flattened Devicetree (DTB) format version 17 or higher as described in +[DTSPEC]_ § 5.1. +The following GUID must be used in the EFI system table ([UEFI]_ § 4) +to identify the DTB. +The DTB must be contained in memory of type EfiACPIReclaimMemory. + +.. code-block:: c + + #define EFI_DTB_GUID \ + EFI_GUID(0xb1b621d5, 0xf19c, 0x41a5, \ + 0x83, 0x0b, 0xd9, 0x15, 0x2c, 0x69, 0xaa, 0xe0) + +Firmware must have the DTB resident in memory and installed in the EFI system table +before executing any UEFI applications or drivers that are not part of the system +firmware image. +Once the DTB is installed as a configuration table, +the system firmware must not make any modification to it or reference any data +contained within the DTB. + +UEFI applications are permitted to modify or replace the loaded DTB. +System firmware must not depend on any data contained within the DTB. +If system firmware makes use of a DTB for its own configuration, +it should use a separate private copy that is not installed in the +EFI System Table or otherwise be exposed to EFI applications. + UEFI Secure Boot (Optional) --------------------------- @@ -111,7 +140,7 @@ during both boot services and runtime services. However, it isn't always practical for all EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES functions to be callable during runtime services due to hardware limitations. If any EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES functions are only available during boot services -then firmware shall provide the global `RuntimeServicesSupported` variable to +then firmware shall provide the `EFI_RT_PROPERTIES_TABLE` to indicate which functions are available during runtime services. Functions that are not available during runtime services shall return EFI_UNSUPPORTED. @@ -148,7 +177,7 @@ Firmware shall not create runtime mappings, or perform any runtime IO that will conflict with device access by the OS. Normally this means a device may be controlled by firmware, or controlled by the OS, but not both. -e.g. If firmware attempts to access an eMMC device at runtime then it will +E.g. if firmware attempts to access an eMMC device at runtime then it will conflict with transactions being performed by the OS. Devices that are provided to the OS (i.e., via PCIe discovery or ACPI/DT @@ -202,7 +231,8 @@ If a platform does not implement modifying non-volatile variables with SetVariable() after ExitBootServices(), then firmware shall return EFI_UNSUPPORTED for any call to SetVariable(), and must advertise that SetVariable() isn't available during runtime services -via the `RuntimeServicesSupported` variable as defined in UEFI version 2.8. +via the `RuntimeServicesSupported` value in the `EFI_RT_PROPERTIES_TABLE` +as defined in [UEFI]_ § 4.6. EFI applications can read `RuntimeServicesSupported` to determine if calls to SetVariable() need to be performed before calling ExitBootServices(). diff --git a/source/chapter3-secureworld.rst b/source/chapter3-secureworld.rst index 4e9fa61..9c51bca 100644 --- a/source/chapter3-secureworld.rst +++ b/source/chapter3-secureworld.rst @@ -1,8 +1,8 @@ .. SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-SA-4.0 -****************************** -Priviledged or Secure Firmware -****************************** +***************************** +Privileged or Secure Firmware +***************************** AArch32 Multiprocessor Startup Protocol ======================================= diff --git a/source/index.rst b/source/index.rst index 9bc4a09..7a5ded9 100644 --- a/source/index.rst +++ b/source/index.rst @@ -45,6 +45,9 @@ Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA. 31 March 2019 1.0 - Remove unnecessary UEFI requirements appendix - Allow for ACPI vendor id in firmware path + 1 June 2020 1.0.1-rc1 - Update to UEFI 2.8 Errata A + - Specify UUID for passing DTB + - Typo and editorial fixes ================= ========= ============================================= .. toctree:: diff --git a/source/references.rst b/source/references.rst index a12c1a2..1eb0509 100644 --- a/source/references.rst +++ b/source/references.rst @@ -8,8 +8,8 @@ <https://github.com/devicetree-org/devicetree-specification/releases/tag/v0.2>`_, `Devicetree.org <https://devicetree.org>`_ -.. [LINUXA64BOOT] `Linux Documentation/arm64/booting.txt - <https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/tre…>`_, +.. [LINUXA64BOOT] `Linux Documentation/arm64/booting.rst + <https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/arm64/booting.html>`_, Linux kernel .. [PSCI] `Power State Coordination Interface Issue C (PSCI v1.0) @@ -20,6 +20,6 @@ <https://static.docs.arm.com/den0044/b/DEN0044B_Server_Base_Boot_Requirement…>`_ 8 March 2016, `Arm Limited <http://arm.com>`_ -.. [UEFI] `Unified Extensable Firmware Interface Specification v2.7A - <http://www.uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/UEFI%20Spec%202_7_A%20Sep…>`_, - August 2017, `UEFI Forum <http://www.uefi.org>`_ +.. [UEFI] `Unified Extensable Firmware Interface Specification v2.8 Errata A + <https://uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/UEFI_Spec_2_8_A_Feb14.pdf>`_, + February 2020, `UEFI Forum <http://www.uefi.org>`_

6 years, 4 months

2
2
0 0

Re: RFC: EBBR specification update

by Daniel Thompson

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 01:42:36PM +0100, Francois Ozog wrote: > On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 at 12:45, Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson(a)linaro.org> > wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 11:20:17AM +0100, Francois Ozog wrote: > > > On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 at 07:48, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk(a)gmx.de> > > wrote: > > > > On 3/11/20 12:04 AM, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > > > > In the expert mode of gdisk there is command 'j' for moving the GPT > > > > Partition Entry Array to an arbitrary sector. This will protect the > > area > > > > between the GPT header and the GPT Partition Entry Array from being > > used > > > > for a partition. The same can be done with parameter -j of sgdisk. > > > > > > > > Furthermore gdisk supports creating a hybrid MBR. This allow to have > > > > GUID partition table and a MBR partion table at the same time where the > > > > MBR partition table mirrors up to three GPT partitions and the fourth > > > > MBR partition is used to protect the GUID partition table. > > > > > > > > So requiring GPT and having boards only supporting booting from an MBR > > > > partition (like the Raspberry) seems not to be exclusive. > > > > > > > > > > That sounds like a great solution! > > > > The last time we discussed this there was *very* strong opposition > > during meetings to hybrid partitioning and IIRC language was added to > > the spec to prohibit it. > > > > Hybrid partitioning is a problem because it imposes to difficult to meet > > constraints on partitioning tools provided by the operating system. > > > > In other words if we permit hybrid partitioning in order that boot code > > can find the firmware then the operating system would inherit a duty to > > not to screw up the firmware loading when it modifies the partition > > tables. It is hard to express how the OS should go about that. > > > > Hence the current approach where we accept that MBR partitioning > > offers an inferior feature set to GPT. > > > > > We have the following cases: > > - FW compatible with GPT (I mean firmware can be searched based on > GUID partition) > Ok > > - FW that uses offsets and can be positioned at LBA >= 33 > Ok > Need to define a protective partition > > - FW that uses offsets and can be positioned such that space between LBA-2 > and LBA-33 is used. > Ok in theory as the header states where the partition entries location is > specified in a GPT_HEADER "Starting LBA of array of partition entries". > Linux kernel properly loads the partition entries if we push them after > 16MB. > > read_lba <https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/ident/read_lba>(state, > le64_to_cpu <https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/ident/le64_to_cpu>(gpt->partition_entry_lba) > > But I bet 2 is hardcoded in many tools... Agree... but that's "just bugs" and I suspect we could get >90% test coverage for Linux systems just by checking util-linux (and the kernel itself). Maybe for extra style points also check on of the BSDs. > - FW that supposes LBA-1 (macchiatobin the firmware blob that contain TF-A > must be here) > In theory OK as Linux will detect bad signature and use the alternate GPT In the current spec this case isn't materially different to firmware whose boot ROM parses the MBR to load extra code (which wasn't listed above). In both cases the system would be expected to adopt MBR and create protective partitions for the firmware (and accept that the protective partition is vulnerable to damage by auto-partitioning installers). Having said is this really relevant for MacchiatoBin? Why put EBBR firmware onto shared media? I thought MacchiatoBin could boot from the 4MB SPI NOR. Daniel.

6 years, 4 months

4
13
0 0

Being effective at DT Evolution

by François Ozog

Hi, I have observed a spike in DT presentations at events in 2018 and a relative smaller set in 2019. Many discussions raise a lot of good points, there are lists of things to solve or proposals in various sites but there is no clear path to a widely acceptable solution. It feels like the traditional model of "contribute code first" reaches its limits here: Device Tree is not just a device tree. It is a pivotal piece of information manipulated by too many components from Trusted Firmware A to Mac OSX and U-boot. And there are many legitimate "owners" of pieces of the DT... We need to find a way to build consensus across projects. Mail discussions are good but I feel this does not fully help getting closer to having up streamed code and specs into projects such as (and not limited to): - Trusted Firmware - OP-TEE - Hafnium - U-Boot - Linux - Android - FreeBSD - DeviceTree - EBBR - Firmware Framework A - Parsec To that end, what about collectively building a Technical Report with a number of editors in charge of different sections? An example outline could be: - the problems we try to solve (and what is outside of scope) . board diversity handling (build/boot/runtime) . cape/hat/FPGA handling (build/boot/runtime) . product value chain handling (soc vendor/product vendor/sw vendor...) . trust of DT . device assignment to application or VM - DT evolution . actors (UML meaning) . responsibility boundaries (signatures...) . DTB format evolution . DTBo . DT at build time for many upstream projects - cross project incremental roadmap highlights . introduce DT signature Of course the Technical Report shall be supported by different PoCs on many topics such as DTB format so that the architecture is future proof and we can start small. What are your views? Cheers FF

6 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

boot-architecture