- boot-architecture - lists.linaro.org

[PATCH] Remove unnecessary UEFI requirement tables

by Grant Likely

Nothing in the UEFI Requirements appendix is valuable. The table of required boot services is unnecessary because it is an exact duplicate of the UEFI boot services list in the UEFI spec (and it also happens to be slightly incorrect) (UEFI 2.6.1). It is providing no value to include in EBBR as all UEFI implementations are required to implement the full set. The tables of required core protocols are already specified in the UEFI spec (UEFI 2.6.1) The table of required media i/o protocols are already required if the device supports booting from a disk device (UEFI 2.6.2). The table of console protocols is similarly already required if a console device is present. It isn't clear that HII protocols need to be required. U-Boot does implement them, but it doesn't appear to be a critical requirement on whether or not an OSV can support the platform. The tables of optional UEFI protocols isn't adding any value because it doesn't require anything of implementers, and it doesn't provide any commentary on when the protocols should be included. This is just additional text. Remove the lot to simplify the spec. Signed-off-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely(a)arm.com> --- source/appendix-a-uefi-features.rst | 203 ------------------------------------ source/chapter2-uefi.rst | 4 - source/index.rst | 1 - 3 files changed, 208 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 source/appendix-a-uefi-features.rst diff --git a/source/appendix-a-uefi-features.rst b/source/appendix-a-uefi-features.rst deleted file mode 100644 index bb74ca5..0000000 --- a/source/appendix-a-uefi-features.rst +++ /dev/null @@ -1,203 +0,0 @@ -.. SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-SA-4.0 -.. _appendix-uefi-requirements: - -############################################# -APPENDIX A - UEFI Implementation Requirements -############################################# - -Required Boot Services -********************** - -========================================== ====== -Service UEFI § -========================================== ====== -EFI_RAISE_TPL 7.1 -EFI_RESTORE_TPL 7.1 -EFI_ALLOCATE_PAGES 7.2 -EFI_FREE_PAGES 7.2 -EFI_GET_MEMORY_MAP 7.2 -EFI_ALLOCATE_POOL 7.2 -EFI_FREE_POOL 7.2 -EFI_CREATE_EVENT 7.1 -EFI_SET_TIMER 7.1 -EFI_WAIT_FOR_EVENT 7.1 -EFI_SIGNAL_EVENT 7.1 -EFI_CLOSE_EVENT 7.1 -EFI_INSTALL_PROTOCOL_INTERFACE 7.3 -EFI_REINSTALL_PROTOCOL_INTERFACE 7.3 -EFI_UNINSTALL_PROTOCOL_INTERFACE 7.3 -EFI_HANDLE_PROTOCOL 7.3 -EFI_REGISTER_PROTOCOL_NOTIFY 7.3 -EFI_LOCATE_HANDLE 7.3 -EFI_LOCATE_PROTOCOL 7.3 -EFI_LOCATE_DEVICE_PATH 7.3 -EFI_INSTALL_CONFIGURATION_TABLE 7.3 -EFI_IMAGE_LOAD 7.4 -EFI_IMAGE_START 7.4 -EFI_EXIT 7.4 -EFI_IMAGE_UNLOAD 7.4 -EFI_EXIT_BOOT_SERVICES 7.4 -EFI_GET_NEXT_MONOTONIC_COUNT 7.5 -EFI_STALL 7.5 -EFI_SET_WATCHDOG_TIMER 7.5 -EFI_CONNECT_CONTROLLER 7.3 -EFI_DISCONNECT_CONTROLLER 7.3 -EFI_OPEN_PROTOCOL 7.3 -EFI_CLOSE_PROTOCOL 7.3 -EFI_OPEN_PROTOCOL_INFORMATION 7.3 -EFI_PROTOCOLS_PER_HANDLE 7.3 -EFI_LOCATE_HANDLE_BUFFER 7.3 -EFI_LOCATE_PROTOCOL 7.3 -EFI_INSTALL_MULTIPLE_PROTOCOL_INTERFACES 7.3 -EFI_UNINSTALL_MULTIPLE_PROTOCOL_INTERFACES 7.3 -EFI_CALCULATE_CRC32 7.5 -EFI_COPY_MEM 7.5 -EFI_SET_MEM 7.5 -EFI_CREATE_EVENT_EX 7.5 -========================================== ====== - -Required UEFI Protocols -*********************** - -Core UEFI Protocols -=================== - -========================================== ====== -Service UEFI § -========================================== ====== -EFI_LOADED_IMAGE_PROTOCOL 9.1 -EFI_LOADED_IMAGE_DEVICE_PATH_PROTOCOL 9.2 -EFI_DECOMPRESS_PROTOCOL 19.5 -EFI_DEVICE_PATH_PROTOCOL 10.2 -EFI_DEVICE_PATH_UTILITIES_PROTOCOL 10.3 -========================================== ====== - -Media I/O Protocols -=================== - -========================================== ====== -Service UEFI § -========================================== ====== -EFI_LOAD_FILE2_PROTOCOL 13.2 -EFI_SIMPLE_FILE_SYSTEM_PROTOCOL 13.4 -EFI_FILE_PROTOCOL 13.5 -========================================== ====== - -Console Protocols -================= - -========================================== ====== -Service UEFI § -========================================== ====== -EFI_SIMPLE_TEXT_INPUT_PROTOCOL 12.2 -EFI_SIMPLE_TEXT_INPUT_EX_PROTOCOL 12.3 -EFI_SIMPLE_TEXT_OUTPUT_PROTOCOL 12.4 -========================================== ====== - -Driver Configuration Protocols -============================== - -========================================== ====== -Service UEFI § -========================================== ====== -EFI_HII_DATABASE_PROTOCOL 33.4 -EFI_HII_STRING_PROTOCOL 33.4 -EFI_HII_CONFIG_ROUTING_PROTOCOL 33.4 -EFI_HII_CONFIG_ACCESS_PROTOCOL 33.4 -========================================== ====== - -Optional UEFI Protocols -*********************** - -Basic Networking Support -======================== - -============================================ ====== -Service UEFI § -============================================ ====== -EFI_SIMPLE_NETWORK_PROTOCOL 24.1 -EFI_MANAGED_NETWORK_PROTOCOL 25.1 -EFI_MANAGED_NETWORK_SERVICE_BINDING_PROTOCOL 25.1 -============================================ ====== - -.. note:: Networking services are optional on platforms that do not support - networking. - -Network Boot Protocols -====================== - -========================================== ====== -Service UEFI § -========================================== ====== -EFI_PXE_BASE_CODE_PROTOCOL 24.3 -EFI_PXE_BASE_CODE_CALLBACK_PROTOCOL 24.4 -EFI_BIS_PROTOCOL 24.5 -EFI_MTFTP4_PROTOCOL 30.3 -EFI_MTFTP6_PROTOCOL 30.4 -========================================== ====== - -.. note:: EFI_BIS_PROTOCOL is optional on machines that do not support Secure - Boot. - -IPV4 Network Support -==================== - -========================================== ====== -Service UEFI § -========================================== ====== -EFI_ARP_PROTOCOL 29.1 -EFI_ARP_SERVICE_BINDING_PROTOCOL 29.1 -EFI_DHCP4_SERVICE_BINDING_PROTOCOL 29.2 -EFI_DHCP4_PROTOCOL 29.2 -EFI_TCP4_PROTOCOL 28.1.2 -EFI_TCP4_SERVICE_BINDING_PROTOCOL 28.1.1 -EFI_IP4_SERVICE_BINDING_PROTOCOL 28.3.1 -EFI_IP4_CONFIG2_PROTOCOL 28.5 -EFI_UDP4_PROTOCOL 30.1.2 -EFI_UDP4_SERVICE_BINDING_PROTOCOL 30.1.1 -========================================== ====== - -.. note:: Networking services are optional on platforms that do not support - networking. - -IPV6 Network Support -==================== - -========================================== ====== -Service UEFI § -========================================== ====== -EFI_DHCP6_PROTOCOL 29.3.2 -EFI_DHCP6_SERVICE_BINDING_PROTOCOL 29.3.1 -EFI_TCP6_PROTOCOL 28.2.2 -EFI_TCP6_SERVICE_BINDING_PROTOCOL 28.2.1 -EFI_IP6_SERVICE_BINDING_PROTOCOL 28.6.1 -EFI_IP6_CONFIG_PROTOCOL 28.7 -EFI_UDP6_PROTOCOL 30.2.2 -EFI_UDP6_SERVICE_BINDING_PROTOCOL 30.2.1 -========================================== ====== - -.. note:: Networking services are optional on platforms that do not support - networking. - -VLAN Protocols -============== - -========================================== ====== -Service UEFI § -========================================== ====== -EFI_VLAN_CONFIG_PROTOCOL 27.1 -========================================== ====== - -iSCSI Protocols -=============== - -========================================== ====== -Service UEFI § -========================================== ====== -EFI_ISCSI_INITIATOR_NAME_PROTOCOL 16.2 -========================================== ====== - -.. 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 - diff --git a/source/chapter2-uefi.rst b/source/chapter2-uefi.rst index a8fe3a3..f6a5802 100644 --- a/source/chapter2-uefi.rst +++ b/source/chapter2-uefi.rst @@ -17,10 +17,6 @@ UEFI Compliance EBBR compliant platforms shall conform to the requirements in [UEFI]_ § 2.6, except where explicit exemptions are provided by this document. -EBBR compliant platforms shall also implement the UEFI services and -protocols that are listed in :ref:`appendix-uefi-requirements` of this -document. - Block device partitioning ------------------------- diff --git a/source/index.rst b/source/index.rst index 8722694..186498f 100644 --- a/source/index.rst +++ b/source/index.rst @@ -51,5 +51,4 @@ Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA. chapter2-uefi chapter3-secureworld chapter4-firmware-media - appendix-a-uefi-features references -- 2.13.0

6 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

New series of EBBR meetings

by Grant Likely

Hi all, I've created a new series of EBBR meetings; this time biweekly on the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of each month based on the feedback I received on the Doodle poll. First meeting today and the one topic on the agenda is pickup up from where things were left off in December. Here are the dial-in details: - Online meeting: https://arm-onsite.webex.com/meet/gralik01 - Phone - Access code: 809 053 990 - 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: https://arm-onsite.webex.com/cmp3300/webcomponents/widget/globalcallin/glob… 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, 4 months

1
1
0 0

[PATCH 0/4] Updates for EBBR v0.8 (maybe v1.0-rc)

by Grant Likely

I've made the following changes to EBBR to prepare for the v1.0 release. Most of these are editorial. The biggest change is the SetVariable() language which has already been discussed. Cheers, g.

6 years, 4 months

1
4
0 0

Re: Question: how to identify vendor firmware setups conflicting with disk partitions?

by Steve McIntyre

Hi Grant! [ Re-adding the CC to the list, I guess you dropped that by mistake ] On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 05:22:10PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote: >On 28/02/2019 17:12, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> >> I'm now looking at updating our logic on armhf/arm64 to do something >> like: >> >> if (booted via UEFI); then >> if (booted using U-Boot); then >> echo MBR >> else >> echo GPT >> fi >> else >> echo MBR >> fi >> >> but I'll need to find a sane way to detect U-Boot->UEFI boot. For now >> I'm looking at parsing dmesg output to look for something like >> >> [ 0.000000] efi: EFI v2.70 by Das U-Boot >> >> but I'm hoping for a better solution. This is also somewhat assuming >> that detecting U-Boot in the boot chain is a valid indicator for >> "unsafe location for firmware", but I'm not sure of a better way! > >I really want to avoid installers checking for specific firmware >implementations. The interface is UEFI regardless of U-Boot or tianocore >as the implementation. > >It also isn't actually about U-Boot. It's a limitation of the boot >masked ROM in the SoC that do not respect partitioning schemes. In these >cases both Tianocore and U-Boot have the same problem, and >repartitioning the device will blow away the bootloader. ACK - I've acknowledged that above. I've personally seen very few devices with Tianocore firmware at arbitrary locations, but lots with U-Boot. That seems to be the pattern. Do you have any common examples for Tianocore? >Perhaps there should be a property in the DT that lists the reserved >blocks on the SD or eMMC device. Maybe, but that bird has already flown surely? I'm talking about existing devices that vendors are not updating. >Or, maybe, we can define an information block that has an >identifiable header+checksum which can tell the OS which blocks are >occupied by firmware. If it exists somewhere within the first few >blocks then the partitioning tool could scan for it before >repartitioning. It could also be embedded into the firmware image >that gets dd'ed onto the media. Maybe we can scan the first few sectors of a disk to see if it has any other recognisable strings, then. I'm trying to work out a safe(!) yet also reasonably easy way for partitioning to work. Our existing code isn't working, and we are already over-writing firmware stored in dumb places. :-( Cheers, -- Steve McIntyre steve.mcintyre(a)linaro.org <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs

6 years, 4 months

2
1
0 0

New series of EBBR meetings

by Grant Likely

I accidentally deleted the old series of EBBR meetings. However, that's okay since other meetings have moved around and it is time to review the meeting time anyway. I think we should switch to bi-weekly meetings alternating with the LEDGE SC meeting. Here is a doodle poll for a new meeting time: https://doodle.com/poll/359273ngta74rqut I'll set up a new meeting series about this time next week. Please let me know what times work for you. Thanks, g.

6 years, 4 months

4
4
0 0

Question: how to identify vendor firmware setups conflicting with disk partitions?

by Steve McIntyre

Hi folks, I've just been having a discussion with folks about installing Debian on an arm64 device. Another developer is booting via U-Boot with UEFI and things are working OK, except... The intructions for their board [0] include writing things raw to both sector 0 and sector 1 of an SD card, meaning that both MBR and GPT partitioning schemes are likely to break. Ugh. :-/ So, I have two (related) worries: 1. At the moment in Debian, our installer will default to using GPT for arm64 machines (where disks are not already formatted). That was fine when we were expecting server systems booting using edk2, but it looks like that's now a dangerous assumption, as more and more U-Boot devices are out there which will be wanting to load firmware from low-numbered LBAs. 2. I'm just in the middle of adding EFI armhf installer support, and that is also (currently) defaulting to GPT if you've booted via EFI. This is fine for VMs booted using a 32-bit Arm build of edk2, but also it's starting to look like a bad option for real boards booting using U-Boot's EFI support (for similar reasons). The "Firmware Storage" section of EBBR v0.6 touches on this and describes how to store firmware in a safer manner, but obviously (some/many) vendors are not following the spec thus far. What are other folks doing in this area? How do you recognise which devices it's safe to use GPT on, for example? I'm now looking at updating our logic on armhf/arm64 to do something like: if (booted via UEFI); then if (booted using U-Boot); then echo MBR else echo GPT fi else echo MBR fi but I'll need to find a sane way to detect U-Boot->UEFI boot. For now I'm looking at parsing dmesg output to look for something like [ 0.000000] efi: EFI v2.70 by Das U-Boot but I'm hoping for a better solution. This is also somewhat assuming that detecting U-Boot in the boot chain is a valid indicator for "unsafe location for firmware", but I'm not sure of a better way! [0] http://share.loverpi.com/board/libre-computer-project/libre-computer-board-… Cheers, -- Steve McIntyre steve.mcintyre(a)linaro.org <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs

6 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [RFC v9 2/5] dt-bindings: pstore-block: new support for blkoops

by Rob Herring

+boot-architecture list On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 07:52:47PM +0800, liaoweixiong wrote: > Create DT binding document for blkoops. > > Signed-off-by: liaoweixiong <liaoweixiong(a)allwinnertech.com> > --- > .../devicetree/bindings/pstore/blkoops.txt | 53 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > MAINTAINERS | 1 + > 2 files changed, 54 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pstore/blkoops.txt > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pstore/blkoops.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pstore/blkoops.txt > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..5462915 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pstore/blkoops.txt > @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ > +Blkoops oops logger > +=================== > + > +Blkoops provides a block partition for oops, excluding panics now, so they can > +be recovered after a reboot. > + > +Any space of block device will be used for a circular buffer of oops records. > +These records have a configurable size, with a size of 0 indicating that they > +should be disabled. > + > +At least one of "block-device" and "total_size" must be set. > + > +At least one of "dmesg-size" or "pmsg-size" must be set non-zero. > + > +Required properties: > + > +- compatible: must be "blkoops". > + > +Optional properties: > + > +- block-device: The block device to use. Most of the time, it is a partition of > + device. If block-device is NULL, no block device is effective > + and the data will be lost after rebooting. > + It accept the following variants: > + 1) <hex_major><hex_minor> device number in hexadecimal > + represents itself no leading 0x, for example b302. > + 2) /dev/<disk_name> represents the device number of disk > + 3) /dev/<disk_name><decimal> represents the device number of > + partition - device number of disk plus the partition number > + 4) /dev/<disk_name>p<decimal> - same as the above, that form is > + used when disk name of partitioned disk ends on a digit. > + 5) PARTUUID=00112233-4455-6677-8899-AABBCCDDEEFF representing > + the unique id of a partition if the partition table provides > + it. The UUID may be either an EFI/GPT UUID, or refer to an > + MSDOS partition using the format SSSSSSSS-PP, where SSSSSSSS > + is a zero-filled hex representation of the 32-bit > + "NT disk signature", and PP is a zero-filled hex > + representation of the 1-based partition number. > + 6) PARTUUID=<UUID>/PARTNROFF=<int> to select a partition in > + relation to a partition with a known unique id. > + 7) <major>:<minor> major and minor number of the device > + separated by a colon. No. I didn't suggest to go look at PARTUUID to copy it into the binding, but rather to point out that the kernel can already mount by UUID. Specifying the UUID in DT is also not what I suggested. My suggestion is to define a known UUID so that the kernel (and bootloaders, userspace, the world) can just know the UUID. Just like the EFI system partition. Now this means you have to get it defined in the UEFI specification (or maybe EBBR[1]). If you want help with how to do that, the boot-architecture list is a good place to start. major/minor numbers are a Linux thing, so they don't go in DT. /dev/* is Linux thing, so it doesn't go in DT. You can always define all these parameters as kernel command line options and avoid DT. That would also make this work on *all* systems, not just DT based systems. (Though I still believe that the partition should be discoverable.) Rob [1] https://github.com/ARM-software/ebbr

6 years, 4 months

2
1
0 0

[PATCH] Simplify SetVariable() language

by Grant Likely

Instead of masking out GetVariable() when SetVariable() isn't available during runtime services, simplify the requirements without losing the ability to read variables by using the RuntimeServicesSupported variable from UEFI v2.8.1 (unreleased); Mantis issue 1961. Peter Jones's earlier patch also specified a Capsule-on-Disk format for updating variables that the OS could store in the ESP. I've not included that specification in this patch as it is logically a separate feature. It may reappear in a separate patch at a later date, or it may get proposed for inclusion in the UEFI spec proper. Signed-off-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely(a)arm.com> Cc: Peter Jones <pjones(a)redhat.com> --- source/chapter2-uefi.rst | 17 ++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/source/chapter2-uefi.rst b/source/chapter2-uefi.rst index 379f0ca..4f74d43 100644 --- a/source/chapter2-uefi.rst +++ b/source/chapter2-uefi.rst @@ -201,14 +201,15 @@ variables stored on shared media. [#OPTEESupplicant]_ If a platform does not implement modifying non-volatile variables with SetVariable() after ExitBootServices(), -then it must not provide any variable operations after ExitBootServices(). -Firmware shall return EFI_UNSUPPORTED for any call to GetVariable(), -GetNextVariableName() and SetVariable(). -Firmware shall not emulated non-volatile variables using volatile RAM cache. +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 2.8.1. +EFI applications can read RuntimeServicesSupported to determine if calls +to SetVariable() need to be performed before calling ExitBootServices(). -.. note:: The behaviour when SetVariable() is not supported during runtime - services is still under discussion and subject to change. - Do not make any firmware implementation decisions based on this text yet. +Even when SetVariable() is not supported during runtime services, firmware +should cache variable names and values in EfiRuntimeServicesData memory so +that GetVariable() and GetNextVeriableName() can behave as specified. .. [#OPTEESupplicant] It is worth noting that OP-TEE has a similar problem regarding secure storage. @@ -216,5 +217,7 @@ Firmware shall not emulated non-volatile variables using volatile RAM cache. storage operations on behalf of OP-TEE. The same solution may be applicable to solving the UEFI non-volatile variable problem, but it requires additional OS support to work. + Regardless, EBBR compliance does not require SetVariable() support + during runtime services. https://github.com/OP-TEE/optee_os/blob/master/documentation/secure_storage… -- 2.13.0

6 years, 6 months

2
1
0 0

EBBR Meeting Cancelled - 13 Dec 2018

by Grant Likely

Sorry, but I have to cancel today's meeting due to high priority interrupt. We will meet next week (20th Dec), and then break until next year. g.

6 years, 7 months

1
0
0 0

Re: Moving ARM dts files

by Rob Herring

On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 9:16 AM Mark Brown <broonie(a)kernel.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 08:57:06AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 2:07 PM Mark Brown <broonie(a)kernel.org> wrote: > > > > The issues with the existing install_dtbs sounded unrelated to this. > > > Maybe, what are the issues? We can't change the source layout > > transparently if dtbs_install is not being used. > > I thought that was the thing with adding -@ so overlays could be used? I don't think so as that is during building, not install. Any user can set '-@' with 'make DTC_FLAGS="-@" ...' already. The issue with that was changing the default globally and no way to set per platform. Now that I think about, moving the sources to subdirs may allow setting DTC_FLAGS per subdir which may be good enough. Rob

6 years, 7 months

1
0
0 0

Re: Moving ARM dts files

by Rob Herring

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 2:07 PM Mark Brown <broonie(a)kernel.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 01:06:43PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 7:32 AM Andreas Färber <afaerber(a)suse.de> wrote: > > > > I'd be okay with distinguishing source vs. install location. Due to the > > > issue I mention below (and more) we can't use install_dtbs for openSUSE > > > and had to reimplement it, which we'd need to (and can) adjust. > > > What would be needed for dtbs_install to work? arm64 needs to support > > a flat install? If it doesn't work for Debian or openSUSE, I'm not > > sure why we have it. So I'd like to make it work. > > Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as the flat vs directory thing goes > isn't the issue that this winds up being a rename for an existing 32 bit > system? If you just install the dtbs in the default location then a > bootloader or whatever that is hard coded to look for foo-bar.dtb won't > see the new foo/foo-bar.dtb (or whatever) and will continue to use the > old binary. It's not the fact that that it's in a directory, it's the > fact that the bootloader sees the name it needs to look for change (if > it's looking on a filesystem at all). Correct. > This isn't a problem for arm64 as > the location isn't changing, it's used directories from day one. The kernel may have used directories, but that's not what the distros did according to Andreas: > We already had that discussion for arm64 because Debian chose to ignore > the kernel-installed subdirectories and installed .dtb files into a flat > directory, which collided with openSUSE sticking to the kernel choice. So are the distros different or who changed to align? That's not clear from this thread. > The issues with the existing install_dtbs sounded unrelated to this. Maybe, what are the issues? We can't change the source layout transparently if dtbs_install is not being used. My question here is whether a flat install is useful on arm64. We can either have a kconfig variable that arm32 sets to do flat installs or it could be some command line make variable and then any user can pick what they want for any arch. Rob

6 years, 7 months

1
0
0 0

Re: Moving ARM dts files

by Olof Johansson

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:07 PM Mark Brown <broonie(a)kernel.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 01:06:43PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 7:32 AM Andreas Färber <afaerber(a)suse.de> wrote: > > > > I'd be okay with distinguishing source vs. install location. Due to the > > > issue I mention below (and more) we can't use install_dtbs for openSUSE > > > and had to reimplement it, which we'd need to (and can) adjust. > > > What would be needed for dtbs_install to work? arm64 needs to support > > a flat install? If it doesn't work for Debian or openSUSE, I'm not > > sure why we have it. So I'd like to make it work. > > Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as the flat vs directory thing goes > isn't the issue that this winds up being a rename for an existing 32 bit > system? If you just install the dtbs in the default location then a > bootloader or whatever that is hard coded to look for foo-bar.dtb won't > see the new foo/foo-bar.dtb (or whatever) and will continue to use the > old binary. It's not the fact that that it's in a directory, it's the > fact that the bootloader sees the name it needs to look for change (if > it's looking on a filesystem at all). This isn't a problem for arm64 as > the location isn't changing, it's used directories from day one. Yeah, install needs to remain flat even if the dts files move into subdirectories. It will be painful for everybody if the install location moves. > The issues with the existing install_dtbs sounded unrelated to this. Agreed. -Olof

6 years, 7 months

1
0
0 0

Re: Moving ARM dts files

by Andreas Färber

Rob, Am 04.12.18 um 19:36 schrieb Rob Herring: > I've put together a script to move the dts files and update the > makefiles. It doesn't handle files not following a common prefix which > isn't many and some includes within the dts files will need some fixups > by hand. > > MAINTAINERS will also need updating. > > A few questions: > > Do we want to move absolutely everything to subdirs? This refactoring is a terrible idea! While it would've been nice to have more structure from the start, bootloaders like U-Boot expect a flat structure for arm .dtb files now. If you start installing them into subdirs instead, they won't find the files anymore under the hardcoded name. Doing this only for new platforms would be much less invasive and allow to prepare bootloaders accordingly. Alternatively, white-list which ones are safe to move around. But don't just script a refactoring because it looks nicer in the source tree, without testing what side effects this can have for board/distro users of the compiled files in practice. We already had that discussion for arm64 because Debian chose to ignore the kernel-installed subdirectories and installed .dtb files into a flat directory, which collided with openSUSE sticking to the kernel choice. This topic becomes even more important with EBBR: There is neither a mechanism in place to sync .dts files into U-Boot or EDK2 source trees, nor are capsule updates implemented in U-Boot for easily deploying such bootloaders with new .dts sources or paths yet. And I can assure you that just getting users to dd the right bootloader can be difficult... Since DT forward and backward compatibility is often being neglected, for example with optional properties or renamed compatibles that break booting with previous drivers, new kernel versions often need updated Device Trees to make use of new/enhanced drivers. Therefore it is unfortunately often enough a necessity to load newer kernel-based .dtb files matching the kernel (as opposed to the dream of kernel-independent hardware descriptions) when working with the latest -rc or -next kernels at least. For examples of DTs needing updates, look no further than Linaro's 96boards - in case of hikey960/EDK2 GRUB is another layer where .dtb paths may be hardcoded, ditto for arm; and Armada was an example where the upstream bindings for the network IP changed incompatibly. DT overlays are another topic that is not making any progress upstream according to the ELCE BoF, so beyond the Raspberry Pi the only known working way to apply them is to write a U-Boot boot.scr script, which can either reuse $fdtcontroladdr DT or use the filename $fdtfile or hardcode one, the latter two of which would break with your renaming. So expect people to be using .dtb files, expect them to be affected by file movements to subdirectories here, and don't expect each user to understand or be able to fix things themselves if they fall apart as result of your changes and they suddenly no longer have Ethernet/Wifi. Regards, Andreas -- SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)

6 years, 7 months

2
3
0 0

EBBR Agenda - 6 Dec 2018 - Meeting cancelled

by Grant Likely

I don't have an agenda for today. The one remaining blocker for 1.0 release is still open. I had hoped to get it written this past week, but haven't got it done yet. I did have a very productive meeting with Qualcomm last week. They have good feedback on the v0.6 draft, but I'll let them speak for themselves. I'm cancelling todays meeting, but I'll open the call anyway simply because it is so late that I'm sending this email. If you want to chat, feel free to dial in. If you do have a topic you want to discuss next week, please email me in the next week. g.

6 years, 7 months

1
0
0 0

EBBR Agenda - 8 Nov 2018

by Grant Likely

Any agenda items for todays call? Here is what I have so far: - Updates - SetVariable() - Compatibility statement - EBBR Plugfest? - Other Business Next week (15 Nov) we won't have a call, nor will there be a call on 29 Nov. g.

6 years, 8 months

3
3
0 0

[PATCH 1/7] Remove UEFI Loaded Image section

by Grant Likely

The UEFI spec already specifies the image format. No need to specify in EBBR. Signed-off-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely(a)arm.com> --- source/chapter2-uefi.rst | 6 ------ 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/source/chapter2-uefi.rst b/source/chapter2-uefi.rst index 177a81c..f89ac04 100644 --- a/source/chapter2-uefi.rst +++ b/source/chapter2-uefi.rst @@ -73,12 +73,6 @@ that virtual addresses must equal physical addresses. The default RAM allocated attribute must be EFI_MEMORY_WB. -UEFI Loaded Images ------------------- - -UEFI loaded images for AArch64 must be in 64-bit PE/COFF format and must -contain only A64 code. - Configuration Tables -------------------- -- 2.13.0

6 years, 8 months

10
35
0 0

EBBR Weekly Agenda - 1 Nov 2018

by Grant Likely

This weeks meeting will need to be short as I've got a conflict at the top of the hour. We'll do a quick round table, and then I'd like to talk a bit more about the SetVariable() proposal made by Peter J. I personally am a bit confused as to the scope of the proposal. Agenda 01/11/2018: - Release progress - Round table - SetVariable() proposal from Peter Jones Anyone is welcome to join. Feel free to pass this invitation along. Let me know if anyone has trouble dialling/connecting to the WebEx bridge. Time: Every Thursday at 16:30-17:30 BST (8:30 PDT, 23:30 CST) g. --- Grant Likely's Personal Room https://arm-onsite.webex.com/meet/gralik01 Access code: 809 053 990 Join by 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) Access code: 809 053 990 More access numbers: https://arm-onsite.webex.com/cmp3300/webcomponents/widget/globalcallin/glob… https://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf

6 years, 8 months

1
0
0 0

EBBR v0.7 released

by Grant Likely

Hi everyone, I've tagged v0.7 of EBBR for review. Please feel free to circulate and solicit feedback. It will certainly be discussed at ELC Europe next week in Edinburgh. https://github.com/ARM-software/ebbr/releases/tag/v0.7 Thanks, g.

6 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

[PATCH v2] Refactor ResetSystem() requirements

by Grant Likely

ResetSystem() was over-specified in the document. UEFI already documents the behaviour of ResetSystem() sufficiently. Add notes on expected behaviour when platform specific or standard interface methods are available. Resolves: #29 Signed-off-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely(a)arm.com> --- source/chapter2-uefi.rst | 27 ++++++++++----------------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) diff --git a/source/chapter2-uefi.rst b/source/chapter2-uefi.rst index 0cbddff..8a3ff1a 100644 --- a/source/chapter2-uefi.rst +++ b/source/chapter2-uefi.rst @@ -175,23 +175,16 @@ and the OS must use a device driver to control the RTC. UEFI Reset and Shutdown ----------------------- -The UEFI Runtime service ResetSystem() must implement the following commands, -for purposes of power management and system control. - -- EfiResetCold() -- EfiResetShutdown() - * EfiResetShutdown must not reboot the system. - -If firmware updates are supported through the Runtime Service of -UpdateCapsule(), then ResetSystem() might need to support the following -command: - -- EfiWarmReset() - -.. note:: On platforms implementing the Power State Coordination Interface - specification [PSCI]_, it is still required that EBBR compliant - Operating Systems calls to reset the system will go via Runtime Services - and not directly to PSCI. +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 ResetSystem() returns EFI_UNSUPPORTED, then the OS may fall back to +an architecture or platform specific mechanism. + +On AArch64 platforms implementing [PSCI]_, +if ResetSystem() is not implemented then the Operating System should fall +back to making a PSCI call to reset or shutdown the system. Runtime Variable Access ----------------------- -- 2.13.0

6 years, 9 months

5
10
0 0

EBBR Weekly Agenda - 27 Sept 2018

by Grant Likely

For those of you dialing into the weekly EBBR call, the dial in details have changed (see below). We'll use WebEx instead of Skype for Business from here on. Agenda 27/09/2018: • YVR18 Recap • Review meeting time • Release schedule • Get/SetVariable – once more with feeling • reference platforms/qemu Anyone is welcome to join. Feel free to pass this invitation along. Let me know if anyone has trouble dialling/connecting to the SfB bridge. Time: Every Thursday at 16:30-17:30 BST (8:30 PDT, 23:30 CST) [1] https://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/boot-architecture/2018-April/000419.html g. --- Grant Likely's Personal Room https://arm-onsite.webex.com/meet/gralik01 Access code: 809 053 990 Join by 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) Access code: 809 053 990 More access numbers: https://arm-onsite.webex.com/cmp3300/webcomponents/widget/globalcallin/glob… https://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf

6 years, 9 months

2
4
0 0

SMMU included in EBBR spec

by Ilias Apalodimas

Hello, Can we add a discussion in upcoming meetings about the participation of SMMU in the booting procedure? In the past there's been a number of proposals on how to mitigate attacks, were a rogue PCI card is inserted into the system. Some of them include shutting down external DMA ports until the OS explicitly powers them up or blocking DMA using BME bit etc Keeping in mind this will enhance the security of devices would it make sense to include it as a 'MUST' if the hardware is present or a recommendation would be enough? If we enable if a number of questions will rise as well such as, What happens if the SMMU is already configured? Should the OS reconfigure it ? /Ilias

6 years, 9 months

3
4
0 0

Re: EBBR Weekly Agenda - 27 Sept 2018

by Grant Likely

On 27/09/2018 22:19, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 04:25:29PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote: > >> Anyone is welcome to join. Feel free to pass this invitation along. Let me >> know if anyone has trouble dialling/connecting to the SfB bridge. > > Highlighting in case anyone else makes the same mistake I did today: the > dial in details have changed, if you've copied them into your personal > calendar or similar you'll need to update! Oops! The current calendar invite is about to expire, and I'm going to try and rearrange the meeting to be at the top of the hour (need to coordinate with Linaro LEDGE SC meeting). There will be a new invite in the near future. Mark, I also maintain a regular calendar invite. Would you like me to add you to that? g. > >> Time: Every Thursday at 16:30-17:30 BST (8:30 PDT, 23:30 CST) >> >> [1] >> https://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/boot-architecture/2018-April/000419.html >> >> g. >> >> --- >> Grant Likely's Personal Room >> https://arm-onsite.webex.com/meet/gralik01 >> Access code: 809 053 990 >> >> Join by 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) >> Access code: 809 053 990 >> >> More access numbers: >> https://arm-onsite.webex.com/cmp3300/webcomponents/widget/globalcallin/glob… >> https://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf

6 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

EBBR Dial-in for Fact-to-Face at Linaro Connect

by Grant Likely

Hi all, There is a face to face EBBR meeting scheduled at Linaro Connect YVR18. I’m setting up this Skype dial-in for those who won’t be on-site. Time: Tuesday 18 Sept 2018 at 10:00-11:00 PDT ......................................................................................................................................... Join online meeting https://meet.lync.com/armh/grant.likely/97ATLDZ1 Join by Phone +442033215213 (Dial-in Number) English (United Kingdom) Find a local number https://dialin.lync.com/7bdb65cd-97d0-44fe-bc03-bf8072eadc33 Conference ID: 14562158 Forgot your dial-in PIN? https://dialin.lync.com/7bdb65cd-97d0-44fe-bc03-bf8072eadc33 .........................................................................................................................................

6 years, 10 months

1
0
0 0

EBBR Weekly - Agenda 30 Aug 2018

by Grant Likely

Hi all, I'd like to use today's EBBR meeting to discuss the demo for Linaro connect. It would be great if we can have several distro images and show them booting on multiple boards without fuss. Let's coordinate on which boards are feasable candidates to use and which OS images should be used. Talk to you at 16:30BST. Cheers, g. --- 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

6 years, 10 months

5
8
0 0

Re: EBBR Weekly - Agenda 30 Aug 2018

by Grant Likely

On 30/08/2018 15:19, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 03:14:47PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote: > >> Online meeting: https://meet.lync.com/armh/grant.likely/YBY93TIK >> Skype Web App: https://meet.lync.com/armh/grant.likely/YBY93TIK?sl=1 > > I keep meaning to mention - these links never seem to work for me, I > always have to join via phone. Not sure if it's just me or not. > Yeah, skype4business is a pain on Linux. Sadly it's the tool Arm pays for. I've been meaning to see if Arm will supply a Bluejeans account for these meetings. Dial-in always works. You could also try the Skype4Business Android or iOS apps. g.

6 years, 10 months

1
0
0 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

boot-architecture