- boot-architecture - lists.linaro.org

Re: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] [RFC] uefi: Account for SetVariable() not working at runtime

by Grant Likely

On 12/07/2018 15:50, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 02:19:49PM +0000, Udit Kumar wrote: > >>>> Do any existing implementations change variables from non-volatile to >>>> volatile? > >>> The UEFI spec is explicit about which variables are volatile and which are not. >>> Simply relaxing non-volatile to volatile in the general case doesn't seem like a >>> useful approach to me. > >> I believe at boot-time, UEFI specs will be followed for volatile and non-volatile variables. >> Having this in statement EBBR, will help those platform, which cannot expose non-volatile variables at runtime. > > If nothing currently does it the chances that anything will actually > cope well seem minimal. Like Daniel said it seems more likely to break > things - if the variables are defined as being non-volatile then the OS > is unlikely to be checking at runtime if that's the case or not unless > it's explicitly written to work with EBBR. If an error is generated > because a non-volatile variable can't be set then that should at least > fall into whatever error handling code is there to cover normal rutime > failures which has some chance of doing something sensible. There is a hard break at least between when variables are used in boot services, and when they are used at runtime. For Linux, only the UEFI stub will read the variables at boot time (if at all) before calling exitBootServices(). By the time the kernel starts, runtime services are the only way to access variables. There is no caching of variables from the stub to the kernel as far as I can tell. As far as the kernel and userspace are concerned, all the variables will have only ever been volatile. g. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Arm.ebbr-discuss mailing list > Arm.ebbr-discuss(a)arm.com >

7 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

[RFC] uefi: Account for SetVariable() not working at runtime

by Grant Likely

Add details on what to do if the platform is unable to set persistent variables in runtime services. The idea here is that the GetVariable() and SetVariable() APIs should continue to work, and the OS can obtain all the variable settings, but if it cannot be written then the NON_VOLATILE attribute is cleared so the OS knows that persistence is not available. Cc: Dong Wei <dong.wei(a)arm.com> Cc: Alexander Graf <agraf(a)suse.de> Cc: Peter Robinson <pbrobinson(a)redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely(a)arm.com> --- Alex/Peter: Does this approach work for you? I tried to come up with something that is faithful to the spec, gives the OS information that non-volatile variables aren't available, but still have the ability to query the boot environment. Dong: Is this an appropriate way to use {Get,Set}Variable()? Cheers, g. --- source/chapter2-uefi.rst | 18 +++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/source/chapter2-uefi.rst b/source/chapter2-uefi.rst index 7b6843e..57594bc 100644 --- a/source/chapter2-uefi.rst +++ b/source/chapter2-uefi.rst @@ -197,13 +197,13 @@ command: Operating Systems calls to reset the system will go via Runtime Services and not directly to PSCI. -Set Variable ------------- - -Non-volatile UEFI variables must persist across reset, and emulated variables -in RAM are not permitted. -The UEFI Runtime Services must be able to update the variables directly without -the aid of the Operating System. +Runtime Variable Access +----------------------- -.. note:: This normally requires dedicated storage for UEFI variables that is - not directly accessible from the Operating System. +Non-volatile UEFI variables must persist across reset. +If the platform is incapable of updating non-volatile variables from Runtime +Services then it must clear the EFI_VARIABLE_NON_VOLATILE attribute from all +non-volatile variables when ExitBootServices() is called. +Similarly, if non-volatile variables cannot be set from Runtime Services, then +SetVariable() must return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER if the +EFI_VARIABLE_NON_VOLATILE attribute is set. -- 2.13.0

7 years, 9 months

4
4
0 0

Re: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] [RFC] uefi: Account for SetVariable() not working at runtime

by Grant Likely

On 12/07/2018 14:12, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 01:50:45PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:41:08AM +0100, Grant Likely wrote: >>> Add details on what to do if the platform is unable to set persistent >>> variables in runtime services. The idea here is that the GetVariable() >>> and SetVariable() APIs should continue to work, and the OS can obtain >>> all the variable settings, but if it cannot be written then the >>> NON_VOLATILE attribute is cleared so the OS knows that persistence is >>> not available. >> >> I'm really struggling to wrap my head around this one. >> >> How does incorrectly describing a non-volatile but non-modifiable >> variable as volatile help the OS do the right thing? I took a read through section 8.2 of the UEFI spec (Variable services) before drafting the proposal. UEFI doesn't define a "read-only" attribute for variables. It has a non-volatile attribute that says a variable change will be persistant. My thought here was that clearing the non-volatile flag will indicate that making a change to that variable will not be saved, and so won't change the boot order. If an OS tries to modify a variable without using the exact same attributes, then SetVariable() will fail. e.g., If the OS tries to set EFI_VARIABLE_NON_VOLATILE on a veriable without that attribute, then it will fail with EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER (See description of SetVariable()). With my proposed text, if the OS tries to set a new variable with the EFI_VARIABLE_NON_VOLATILE attribute set, then SetVariable() will also fail. (At runtime only; boot time SetVariable() should work as defined). An OS can determine in two ways if variable writes are allowed. 1) If the BOOT* varilables don't have the NON_VOLATILE attribute. 2) A EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER return code when attempting to create an non-volatile variable, or set the NON_VOLATILE attribute. >> The OS will discover the variable is non-modifiable when it tried to >> set it. Won't the current proposal mislead standards compliant use of >> GetVariable()? For example does it it makes standards compliant code >> *more* likely to call SetVariable() in order to fix up a variable that >> it thinks was incorrectly set with the NON_VOLATILE attribute. If it tried to, the call to SetVariable() will fail. > > Do any existing implementations change variables from non-volatile to > volatile? I don't know. That's part of why this is an RFC. I'm looking for the most spec-compatible way to deal with platforms that cannot set non-volatile variables at runtime. The UEFI spec is written with the assumption that non-volatile variables can be written at runtime. EBBR encompases platforms that cannot (yet?) do that, so we're in new territory. There are other approaches that could be taken too. - Alex said a while back that if UEFI doesn't provide any variables at runtime, then it assumes non-volatile variables aren't available and will treat the ESP as if it were removable media. - The problem with this approach is it is a very blunt hammer. It eliminates all possible users of variables at runtime. - We could add an EBBR_FLAGS variable or something similar to indicate EBBR style quirks, like non-volatile variables cannot be written at runtime. Let's talk about this in the weekly meeting later today. g.

7 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

RE: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] [PATCH] Update manifesto from comments on mailing list

by Dong Wei

I like this better😊 - DW - -----Original Message----- From: arm.ebbr-discuss-bounces(a)arm.com <arm.ebbr-discuss-bounces(a)arm.com> On Behalf Of Mark Brown Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 3:18 AM To: Grant Likely <Grant.Likely(a)arm.com> Cc: boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org; arm.ebbr-discuss <arm.ebbr-discuss(a)arm.com>; nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] [PATCH] Update manifesto from comments on mailing list On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 09:11:53PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote: > On 09/07/2018 13:39, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 01:17:56PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote: > > > - While ACPI provides more standardization, Devicetree is > > > preferred in may embedded > > > - platforms for its flexibility. > > > + While ACPI provides more standardization, Devicetree is > > > + preferred in many embedded platforms for its flexibility. > > Bit of a pet peeve of mine since ASoC means I'm frequently having to > > think about systems that fall off the edge of what ACPI can express > > and it's just a miserable experience. > Understood, but I'm going to leave it as is for now. I don't want to > get into a discussion of the reasons Devicetree is preferred. I just > want to acknowledge that both DT and ACPI are supported options. OK... part of what I was reacting to there was that the text read to me like it was making value judgements about the merits of the two (or at least it's a lot like what people say). How about either striking this entirely or something like: Either ACPI or Devicetree may be used depending on which meets the needs of the system better, they have different platform models. 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.

7 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] [RFC] uefi: Account for SetVariable() not working at runtime

by Ard Biesheuvel

On 12 July 2018 at 15:12, Mark Brown <broonie(a)kernel.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 01:50:45PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote: > >> The OS will discover the variable is non-modifiable when it tried to >> set it. Won't the current proposal mislead standards compliant use of >> GetVariable()? For example does it it makes standards compliant code >> *more* likely to call SetVariable() in order to fix up a variable that >> it thinks was incorrectly set with the NON_VOLATILE attribute. > > Do any existing implementations change variables from non-volatile to > volatile? > The UEFI spec is explicit about which variables are volatile and which are not. Simply relaxing non-volatile to volatile in the general case doesn't seem like a useful approach to me.

7 years, 9 months

2
1
0 0

Re: [PATCH] Update manifesto from comments on mailing list

by Grant Likely

On 12/07/2018 11:18, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 09:11:53PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote: >> On 09/07/2018 13:39, Mark Brown wrote: >>> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 01:17:56PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote: > >>>> - While ACPI provides more standardization, Devicetree is preferred in may embedded >>>> - platforms for its flexibility. >>>> + While ACPI provides more standardization, Devicetree is preferred in many >>>> + embedded platforms for its flexibility. > >>> Bit of a pet peeve of mine since ASoC means I'm frequently having to >>> think about systems that fall off the edge of what ACPI can express and >>> it's just a miserable experience. > >> Understood, but I'm going to leave it as is for now. I don't want to get >> into a discussion of the reasons Devicetree is preferred. I just want to >> acknowledge that both DT and ACPI are supported options. > > OK... part of what I was reacting to there was that the text read to me > like it was making value judgements about the merits of the two (or at > least it's a lot like what people say). How about either striking this > entirely or something like: I've dropped it entirely. g.

7 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

[PATCH] v0.6-pre1 draft comments responses

by Grant Likely

Edits responding to comments from Udit Kumar Suggested-by: Udit Kumar <udit.kumar(a)nxp.com> Signed-off-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely(a)arm.com> --- source/chapter1-about.rst | 16 +++++++++------- source/chapter4-firmware-media.rst | 3 ++- 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/source/chapter1-about.rst b/source/chapter1-about.rst index a2561d6..1dafd39 100644 --- a/source/chapter1-about.rst +++ b/source/chapter1-about.rst @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ between platform firmware and an operating system that is suitable for embedded platforms. EBBR compliant platforms present a consistent interface that will boot an EBBR compliant operating system without any custom tailoring required. -For example, an Arm A-class embedded networking platform will benefit +For example, an Arm A-class embedded platform will benefit from a standard interface that supports features such as secure boot and firmware update. @@ -149,12 +149,14 @@ Operating System. This specification is similar to the Arm Server Base Boot Requirements specification [SBBR]_ in that it defines the firmware interface presented to an -operating system, with SBBR having stricter requirements on hardware and -firmware than EBBR. -EBBR allows for design decisions that are common in the embedded space, but not -supported by the server ecosystem. -For example, an embedded system may use a single eMMC storage device to hold -both firmware and operating system images. +operating system. +SBBR is targeted at the server ecosystem and places strict requirements on the +platform to ensure cross vendor interoperability. +EBBR on the other hand allows more flexibility to support embedded designs +which do not fit within the SBBR model. +For example, a platform that isn't SBBR compliant because the SoC is only +supported using Devicetree could be EBBR compliant, but not SBBR compliant. + By definition, all SBBR compliant systems are also EBBR compliant, but the converse is not true. diff --git a/source/chapter4-firmware-media.rst b/source/chapter4-firmware-media.rst index 604df18..39a1c03 100644 --- a/source/chapter4-firmware-media.rst +++ b/source/chapter4-firmware-media.rst @@ -4,7 +4,8 @@ Firmware Storage In general, EBBR compliant platforms should use dedicated storage for boot firmware images and data, -independent of the storage used for OS partitions and the ESP. +independent of the storage used for OS partitions and the EFI System Partition +(ESP). This could be a physically separate device (e.g. SPI flash), or a dedicated logical unit (LU) within a device (e.g. eMMC boot partition, [#eMMCBootPartition]_ -- 2.13.0 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.

7 years, 9 months

2
1
0 0

EBBR v0.6-pre1 Released

by Grant Likely

I've tagged the prerelease in preparation for a wider v0.6 RFC release next week. Please review and comment: https://github.com/glikely/ebbr/releases/tag/v0.6-pre1 (I've linked to the copy on my personal ebbr fork because I'm having trouble getting Travis-ci to deploy to the official repo. It will take a bit of effort to work out what is wrong) g. 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.

7 years, 9 months

3
7
0 0

[PATCH] Update manifesto from comments on mailing list

by Grant Likely

Editing in response to comments from Bill Mills, Daniel Thompson, and Alex Graf. Mostly trivial editorial, but did flush out the discussion of how future updates to the specification would be handled, and added a note about DT platform compatibility rules. Signed-off-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely(a)arm.com> Cc: Bill Mills <wmills(a)ti.com> Cc: Alexander Graf <agraf(a)suse.de> Cc: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson(a)linaro.org> --- source/chapter1-about.rst | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) diff --git a/source/chapter1-about.rst b/source/chapter1-about.rst index cb675d9..a2561d6 100644 --- a/source/chapter1-about.rst +++ b/source/chapter1-about.rst @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ It leverages the prevalent industry standard firmware specification of [UEFI]_. Comments or change requests can be sent to arm.ebbr-discuss(a)arm.com. -Guiding Principals +Guiding Principles ================== EBBR as a specification defines requirements on platforms and operating systems, @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ amount of custom engineering required, make it possible for OS distributions to support embedded platforms, while still preserving the firmware stack product vendors are comfortable with. Or in simpler terms, EBBR is designed to solve the embedded boot mess by -migrating existing firmware projects (U-Boot) to a defined standard (UEFI). +adding a defined standard (UEFI) to the existing firmware projects (U-Boot). However, EBBR is a specification, not an implementation. The goal of EBBR is not to mandate U-Boot and Linux. @@ -61,24 +61,33 @@ ensure that the EBBR requirements are implemented by both projects. [#EDK2Note]_ .. [#EDK2Note] Tianocore/EDK2 and U-Boot are highlighted here because at the - time of writing these are the two most important firmware projects. + time of writing these are the two most important firmware projects that + implement UEFI. Tianocore/EDK2 is a full featured UEFI implementation and so should - automatically be EBBR compliant. U-Boot is the incumbant firmware project - for embedded platforms and has added basic UEFI compliance. + automatically be EBBR compliant. + U-Boot is the incumbant firmware project for embedded platforms and has + steadily been adding UEFI compliance since 2016. -The following guiding principals of the EBBR specification and its -process: +The following guiding principles are used while developing the EBBR specification. - Be agnostic about ACPI and Devicetree. EBBR explicitly does not require a specific system description language. Both Devicetree and ACPI are supported. - While ACPI provides more standardization, Devicetree is preferred in may embedded - platforms for its flexibility. + While ACPI provides more standardization, Devicetree is preferred in many + embedded platforms for its flexibility. The Linux kernel supports both equally well, and so EBBR doesn't require one over the other. - However, it does require the system description to be provided by the - platform, and that it conform to the relevant ACPI or DT specifications. + However, EBBR does require the system description to be supplied by the + platform, not the OS. + The platform must also conform to the relevant ACPI or DT specifications and + adhere to platform compatibility rules. [#CompatRules]_ + +.. [#CompatRules] It must be acknowledged that at the time of writing this + document, platform compatibility rules for DT platforms are not well defined + or documented. + We the authors recognize that this is a problem and are working to solve it + in parallel with this specification. - Focus on the UEFI interface, not a specific codebase @@ -112,10 +121,20 @@ process: - Plan to evolve over time - The first release of EBBR is firmly targeting current embedded hardware. - Future versions will add capabilities which may tighten the hardware requirements. - - However, existing compliant boards will remain compliant. + The v1.0 release of EBBR is firmly targeted at existing platforms so that + gaining EBBR compliance may require a firmware update, but will not require + hardware changes for the majority of platforms. + + Future EBBR releases will tighten requirements to add features and improve + compatibility, which may affect hardware design choices. + However, EBBR will not retroactively revoke support from previously compliant + platforms. + Instead, new requirements will be clearly documented as being over and above + what was required by a previous release. + Existing platforms will be able to retain compliance with a previous + requirement level. + In turn, OS projects and end users can choose what level of EBBR compliance + is required for their use case. Scope ===== -- 2.13.0

7 years, 9 months

5
5
0 0

Re: [PATCH] Update manifesto from comments on mailing list

by Grant Likely

On 09/07/2018 13:39, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 01:17:56PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote: > >> - While ACPI provides more standardization, Devicetree is preferred in may embedded >> - platforms for its flexibility. >> + While ACPI provides more standardization, Devicetree is preferred in many >> + embedded platforms for its flexibility. > > How about something more like > > While ACPI provides strong standardization for platforms that fit > within its model many embedded platforms do not work well within > that model so the standards offered by Devicetree are preferred. > > Bit of a pet peeve of mine since ASoC means I'm frequently having to > think about systems that fall off the edge of what ACPI can express and > it's just a miserable experience. Understood, but I'm going to leave it as is for now. I don't want to get into a discussion of the reasons Devicetree is preferred. I just want to acknowledge that both DT and ACPI are supported options. g.

7 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

[PATCH v4 0/6] Make deferring probe forever optional

by Rob Herring

This series came out of a discussion on the ARM boot-architecture list[1] about DT forwards and backwards compatibility issues. There are issues with newer DTs breaking on older, stable kernels. Some of these are difficult to solve, but cases of optional devices not having kernel support should be solvable. I tested this on a RPi3 B with the pinctrl driver forced off. With this change, the MMC/SD and UART drivers can function without the pinctrl driver. I left the dts change out this time. v2 and v3 of this series can be found here[2][3]. Rob [1] https://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/boot-architecture/2018-April/000466.html [2] https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/project/lkml/list/?series=347413 [3] https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/project/lkml/list/?series=357344 Rob Herring (6): driver core: allow stopping deferred probe after init dt-bindings: pinctrl: add a 'pinctrl-use-default' property pinctrl: Support stopping deferred probe after initcalls iommu: Stop deferring probe at end of initcalls iommu: Remove IOMMU_OF_DECLARE PM / Domains: Stop deferring probe at the end of initcall .../admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 9 +++ .../bindings/pinctrl/pinctrl-bindings.txt | 6 ++ drivers/base/dd.c | 59 +++++++++++++++++++ drivers/base/power/domain.c | 2 +- drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c | 2 - drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c | 7 --- drivers/iommu/exynos-iommu.c | 2 - drivers/iommu/ipmmu-vmsa.c | 3 - drivers/iommu/msm_iommu.c | 2 - drivers/iommu/of_iommu.c | 21 +------ drivers/iommu/qcom_iommu.c | 2 - drivers/iommu/rockchip-iommu.c | 2 - drivers/pinctrl/devicetree.c | 15 +++-- include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h | 2 - include/linux/device.h | 2 + include/linux/of_iommu.h | 4 -- 16 files changed, 90 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-) -- 2.17.1

7 years, 9 months

3
11
0 0

[PATCH] Be clear that UEFI is required

by Grant Likely

Some of the language was ambiguous and it seemed like UEFI was optional. Tighten it up to be clear the EBBR requires UEFI and add some details about how EBBR informs how UEFI is used for embedded systems. The block device partitioning section is also moved within the chapter so it doesn't appear as a subsection of the system environment section (which mainly talks about the CPU execution mode). Signed-off-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely(a)arm.com> --- source/appendix-a-uefi-features.rst | 2 ++ source/chapter1-about.rst | 17 ++++++++++------- source/chapter2-uefi.rst | 29 ++++++++++++++--------------- 3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) diff --git a/source/appendix-a-uefi-features.rst b/source/appendix-a-uefi-features.rst index 0bdc712..709b929 100644 --- a/source/appendix-a-uefi-features.rst +++ b/source/appendix-a-uefi-features.rst @@ -1,3 +1,5 @@ +.. _appendix-uefi-requirements: + ############################################# APPENDIX A - UEFI Implementation Requirements ############################################# diff --git a/source/chapter1-about.rst b/source/chapter1-about.rst index d713cf3..b667f1b 100644 --- a/source/chapter1-about.rst +++ b/source/chapter1-about.rst @@ -5,18 +5,21 @@ About This Document Introduction ============ -This Embedded Base Boot Requirements (EBBR) specification is intended for Arm -embedded devices that want to take advantage of the UEFI technology to separate -the firmware and OS development. -For example, class-A embedded devices like networking platforms can benefit +This Embedded Base Boot Requirements (EBBR) specification defines an interface +between platform firmware and an operating system that is suitable for embedded +platforms. +EBBR compliant platforms present a consistent interface that will boot an EBBR +compliant operating system without any custom tailoring required. +For example, an Arm A-class embedded networking platform will benefit from a standard interface that supports features such as secure boot and firmware update. -This specification defines the base firmware requirements if UEFI is chosen. +This specification defines the base firmware requirements for EBBR compliant platforms. The requirements in this specification are expected to be minimal yet complete, while leaving plenty of room for innovations and design details. This specification is intended to be OS-neutral. -It leverages the prevalent industry standard firmware specifications of UEFI. + +It leverages the prevalent industry standard firmware specification of [UEFI]_. Comments or change requests can be sent to arm.ebbr-discuss(a)arm.com. @@ -24,7 +27,7 @@ Scope ===== This document defines the boot and runtime services that are expected by an Operating System or hypervisor, for an Arm embedded device, which follows the -UEFI specification. +UEFI specification [UEFI]_. This specification defines the boot and runtime services for a physical system, including services that are required for virtualization. diff --git a/source/chapter2-uefi.rst b/source/chapter2-uefi.rst index d13c19e..a8bd71e 100644 --- a/source/chapter2-uefi.rst +++ b/source/chapter2-uefi.rst @@ -2,21 +2,26 @@ UEFI **** +This chapter discusses specific UEFI implementation details for EBBR compliant +platforms. + UEFI Version ============ - -Boot and system firmware for Arm embedded devices can be based on the UEFI -specification [UEFI]_, version 2.7 or later, incorporating the AArch64 bindings. +This document uses version 2.7 of the UEFI specification [UEFI]_. UEFI Compliance =============== -Any UEFI-compliant system must follow the requirements that are laid out in -section 2.6 of the UEFI specification [UEFI]_. -However, to ensure a common boot architecture for embedded-class, systems -compliant with this specification must always provide the UEFI services and -protocols that are listed in Appendix A, Appendix B, and Appendix C of this -document. +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 +------------------------- + +The system firmware must implement support for MBR, GPT and El Torito partitioning. UEFI System Environment and Configuration ========================================= @@ -50,12 +55,6 @@ UEFI-compliant Operating System. In this instance, the UEFI boot-time environment can be provided, as a virtualized service, by the hypervisor and not as part of the host firmware. -System Volume Format --------------------- - -The system firmware must support all partitioning standards required -by the UEFI specification. - UEFI Boot Services ================== -- 2.13.0

7 years, 9 months

2
3
0 0

[PATCH] Introduction: add a manifesto

by Grant Likely

Give some rationale behind EBBR so the reader understands what problem the specification is intended to solve. Signed-off-by: Bill Mills <wmills(a)ti.com> [glikely: made it more verbose to make the intent clear] Signed-off-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely(a)arm.com> --- source/chapter1-about.rst | 94 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 94 insertions(+) diff --git a/source/chapter1-about.rst b/source/chapter1-about.rst index b667f1b..cb675d9 100644 --- a/source/chapter1-about.rst +++ b/source/chapter1-about.rst @@ -23,6 +23,100 @@ It leverages the prevalent industry standard firmware specification of [UEFI]_. Comments or change requests can be sent to arm.ebbr-discuss(a)arm.com. +Guiding Principals +================== + +EBBR as a specification defines requirements on platforms and operating systems, +but requirements alone don't provide insight into why the specification is +written the way it is, or what problems it is intended to solve. +Using the assumption that better understanding of the thought process behind +EBBR will result in better implementations, this section is a discussion of the +goals and guiding principle that shaped EBBR. + +This section should be considered commentary, and not a formal part of the specification. + +EBBR was written as a response to the lack of boot sequence standardization in the embedded system ecosystem. +As embedded systems are becoming more sophisticated and connected, +it is becoming increasingly important for embedded systems to run standard OS +distributions and software stacks, or to have consistent behaviour across a +large deployment of heterogeneous platforms. +However, the lack of consistency between platforms often requires per-platform +customization to get an OS image to boot on multiple platforms. + +A large part of this ecosystem is based on U-Boot and Linux. +Vendors have heavy investments in both projects and are not interested in large +scale changes to their firmware architecture. +The challenge for EBBR is to define a set of boot standards that reduce the +amount of custom engineering required, make it possible for OS distributions to +support embedded platforms, while still preserving the firmware stack product +vendors are comfortable with. +Or in simpler terms, EBBR is designed to solve the embedded boot mess by +migrating existing firmware projects (U-Boot) to a defined standard (UEFI). + +However, EBBR is a specification, not an implementation. +The goal of EBBR is not to mandate U-Boot and Linux. +Rather, it is to mandate interfaces that can be implemented by any firmware or +OS project, while at the same time work with both Tianocore/EDK2 and U-Boot to +ensure that the EBBR requirements are implemented by both projects. +[#EDK2Note]_ + +.. [#EDK2Note] Tianocore/EDK2 and U-Boot are highlighted here because at the + time of writing these are the two most important firmware projects. + Tianocore/EDK2 is a full featured UEFI implementation and so should + automatically be EBBR compliant. U-Boot is the incumbant firmware project + for embedded platforms and has added basic UEFI compliance. + +The following guiding principals of the EBBR specification and its +process: + +- Be agnostic about ACPI and Devicetree. + + EBBR explicitly does not require a specific system description language. + Both Devicetree and ACPI are supported. + While ACPI provides more standardization, Devicetree is preferred in may embedded + platforms for its flexibility. + The Linux kernel supports both equally well, and so EBBR doesn't require one + over the other. + However, it does require the system description to be provided by the + platform, and that it conform to the relevant ACPI or DT specifications. + +- Focus on the UEFI interface, not a specific codebase + + EBBR does not require a specific firmware implementation. + Any firmware project can implement these interfaces. + Neither U-Boot nor Tianocore/EDK2 are required. + +- Design to be implementable and useful today + + The drafting process for EBBR worked closely with U-Boot and Tianocore + developers to ensure that current upstream code will meet the requirements. + +- Design to be OS independent + + This document uses Linux as an example but other OS's are expected. + +- Support multiple architectures + + Any architecture can implement the EBBR requirements. + + .. note:: + At the time of writing this document only addresses AArch64, but AArch32 and others architectures are expected. + +- Design for common embedded hardware + + EBBR support will be implemented on existing developer hardware. + Generally anything that has a near-upstream U-Boot implementation should be + able to implement the EBBR requirements. + EBBR was drafted with readily available hardware in mind, like the + Raspberry Pi and BeagleBone families of boards, and it is applicable for low cost boards (<$10). + +- Plan to evolve over time + + The first release of EBBR is firmly targeting current embedded hardware. + Future versions will add capabilities which may tighten the hardware requirements. + + However, existing compliant boards will remain compliant. + Scope ===== This document defines the boot and runtime services that are expected by an -- 2.13.0

7 years, 9 months

6
9
0 0

Questions about GPT

by William Mills

All, I rely on your greater knowledge to help me understand these questions. Thanks in advance. 1) GPT and block size GPT uses LBA for its data stuctures The size of a block is historically 512B but is moving to larger sizes (4KB). The code needs to handle this on a per device mount basis. How does the driver know the block size used in the LBA? 1A) By querying the device 1B) Some MBR magic? If 1A then that means to me that dd if=/dev/sdb of=/dev/sdc won't produce a usable image on sdc if its block size is different than sdb's. (Of course I also assume that the total space ion sdc is also == or > than that of sdb. Which brings me to ...) 2) Can GPT be grown? In the above example if sdc is much bigger than sdb, I presume this is OK, at least as long as the GPT header in LBA1 passes its CRC. Mounters won't query the drive size and refuse to mount the GPT just because it does not cover the whole disk right? Now what happens if LBA1 becomes corrupted? Now does the driver query the drive size and block size and look at drive_size-block_size for the backup GOT header? Again does it use the block size from the device or does try something else? (I suppose to could try several block sizes until it found a good CRC. However it does seem that it must assume that the redundant copy is at the end of the physical disk.) So even if the GPT is "mounted" OK, the extra space on the drive is not usable, even for new partitions. Are there utilities that will "grow" the GPT? Such growing would find the new end of disk and move the redundant GPT table & header there. 3) Is it actually required that the partition array start at LBA2? If not, then it would be possible to create a GPT assuming 512B blocks but allow it to be "re-block sized" later by leaving 7 512B blocks free before the table. Of course the partitions themselves should be aligned and sized to multiples of the max block size expected. This is probibly already done as you would want them to align to the prefered read/write and those will almost certianly be larger than 512B. Why? The main case I am thinking about is: wget http://downloads.new-wizbang-os.org/images/latest/aarch64-disk.img dd if=aarch64-disk.img of=/dev/my-usb-sd-adapter Then boot the image and the OS will resize the GPT and last filesystem to cover the 16GB of my SD card even though they only require a minimum size of 2GB. Thanks, Bill ---------------- William A. Mills Chief Technologist, Open Solutions, SDO Texas Instruments, Inc. 20450 Century Blvd Germantown MD 20878 240-643-0836

7 years, 9 months

8
20
0 0

[PATCH v3 0/6] Make deferring probe forever optional

by Rob Herring

This series came out of a discussion on the ARM boot-architecture list[1] about DT forwards and backwards compatibility issues. There are issues with newer DTs breaking on older, stable kernels. Some of these are difficult to solve, but cases of optional devices not having kernel support should be solvable. I tested this on a RPi3 B with the pinctrl driver forced off. With this change, the MMC/SD and UART drivers can function without the pinctrl driver. I left the dts change out this time. v2 of this series can be found here[2]. Rob [1] https://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/boot-architecture/2018-April/000466.html [2] https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/project/lkml/list/?series=347413 Rob Herring (6): driver core: allow stopping deferred probe after init dt-bindings: pinctrl: add a 'pinctrl-use-default' property pinctrl: Support stopping deferred probe after initcalls iommu: Stop deferring probe at end of initcalls iommu: Remove IOMMU_OF_DECLARE PM / Domains: Stop deferring probe at the end of initcall .../admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 9 +++ .../bindings/pinctrl/pinctrl-bindings.txt | 6 ++ drivers/base/dd.c | 57 +++++++++++++++++++ drivers/base/power/domain.c | 2 +- drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c | 2 - drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c | 7 --- drivers/iommu/exynos-iommu.c | 2 - drivers/iommu/ipmmu-vmsa.c | 3 - drivers/iommu/msm_iommu.c | 2 - drivers/iommu/of_iommu.c | 21 +------ drivers/iommu/qcom_iommu.c | 2 - drivers/iommu/rockchip-iommu.c | 2 - drivers/pinctrl/devicetree.c | 15 +++-- include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h | 2 - include/linux/device.h | 2 + include/linux/of_iommu.h | 4 -- 16 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-) -- 2.17.1

7 years, 9 months

5
11
0 0

EBBR presentations at LInaro Connect and ELC-E

by Mills, William

All, We really should be doing presentations at Linaro Connect and ELC-E. I can volunteer to help present at ELC-E but I think it would looks better if a small group was represented. For Connect, I won't volunteer to present. I tried that last time and with my required schedule at connect it just does not work out. The ELC-E CFP closed Monday. Perhaps we can sweet talk an extension? Grant, you might have the best chance. Thanks, Bill --------------------------------------------------- William A. Mills Chief Technologist, Open Source Texas Instruments, Processors 20450 Century Blvd Germantown MD, 20874 (work/mobile) +1-240-643-0836

7 years, 9 months

4
6
0 0

UEFI requirements section

by Grant Likely

Dong, Looking at the current state of EBBR, Appendix A contains a big list of boot/runtime services and protocols that are required to be implemented. However, I don't think this list has been audited, and I'm not sure how much of it is actually needed. Some of these things (like the list of boot/runtime services) seem to be required by the UEFI spec, so it is redundant to list them here. I'm also unsure on the list of protocols. Some I'm sure are already required by the UEFI spec. e.g., UEFI section 2.6.1 requires EFI_LOADED_IMAGE_PROTOCOL, EFI_LOADED_IMAGE_DEVICE_PATH, EFI_DEVICE_PATH_PROTOCOL, EFI_DECOMPRESS_PROTOCOL, and EFI_DEVICE_PATH_UTILITIES_PROTOCOL, so is it necessary to list them in EBBR? Looking at the current U-Boot implementation, only the following protocols are implemented: include/efi_api.h|277| #define LOADED_IMAGE_PROTOCOL_GUID \ include/efi_api.h|519| #define EFI_SIMPLE_TEXT_OUTPUT_PROTOCOL_GUID \ include/efi_api.h|590| #define EFI_SIMPLE_TEXT_INPUT_PROTOCOL_GUID \ include/efi_api.h|603| #define EFI_DEVICE_PATH_TO_TEXT_PROTOCOL_GUID \ include/efi_api.h|619| #define EFI_DEVICE_PATH_UTILITIES_PROTOCOL_GUID \ include/efi_api.h|853| #define EFI_SIMPLE_FILE_SYSTEM_PROTOCOL_GUID \ include/efi_api.h|882| #define EFI_SIMPLE_FILE_SYSTEM_PROTOCOL_GUID \ include/efi_api.h|933| #define EFI_DRIVER_BINDING_PROTOCOL_GUID \ Presumably Grub and the kernel only use the above protocols, and they are sufficient to handle perform the distro installer use case. Yet it is not compliant with UEFI 2.7. Notably missing are: UEFI § 2.6.1 - EFI_LOADED_IMAGE_DEVICE_PATH_PROTOCOL - EFI_DEVICE_PATH_PROTOCOL - EFI_DECOMPRESS_PROTOCOL UEFI § 2.6.2 - EFI_SIMPLE_TEXT_EX_PROTOCOL - EFI_BLOCK_IO_PROTOCOL - EFI_DISK_IO_PROTOCOL - EFI_UNICODE_COLLATION_PROTOCOL - EFI_SERIAL_IO_PROTOCOL - EFI_USB2_HC_PROTOCOL - EFI_USB_IO_PROTOCOL In fact, perhaps what EBBR needs is a list of exceptions to the UEFI § 2.6 requirements (expected to reduce over time as the U-Boot implementation matures). Thoughts? For discussion, I've pasted the text of the current UEFI appendix below to make it easy to comment on the mailing list. g. --- .. _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 Runtime Services ************************* ========================================== ====== Service UEFI § ========================================== ====== EFI_GET_TIME 8.3 EFI_SET_TIME 8.3 EFI_GET_WAKEUP_TIME 8.3 EFI_SET_WAKEUP_TIME 8.3 EFI_SET_VIRTUAL_ADDRESS_MAP 8.4 EFI_CONVERT_POINTER 8.4 EFI_GET_VARIABLE 8.2 EFI_GET_NEXT_VARIABLE_NAME 8.2 EFI_SET_VARIABLE 8.2 EFI_GET_NEXT_HIGH_MONO_COUNT 8.5 EFI_RESET_SYSTEM 8.5 EFI_UPDATE_CAPSULE 8.5 EFI_QUERY_CAPSULE_CAPABILITIES 8.5 EFI_QUERY_VARIABLE_INFO 8.5 ========================================== ====== .. note:: EFI_GET_WAKEUP_TIME and EFI_SET_WAKEUP_TIME must be implemented, but might simply return EFI_UNSUPPORTED. 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 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.

7 years, 9 months

3
4
0 0

[PATCH] Introduction: Add a manifesto

by Bill Mills

Tell people what to expect from EBBR in easy bullet form. Signed-off-by: Bill Mills <wmills(a)ti.com> --- source/chapter1-about.rst | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+) diff --git a/source/chapter1-about.rst b/source/chapter1-about.rst index 125e400..83c682f 100644 --- a/source/chapter1-about.rst +++ b/source/chapter1-about.rst @@ -18,6 +18,46 @@ while leaving plenty of room for innovations and design details. This specification is intended to be OS-neutral. It leverages the prevalent industry standard firmware specifications of UEFI. +Guiding Principals +================== + +The following are the guiding principals of the EBBR specification and its +process: + +- DeviceTree or ACPI + + Describes the hardware and firmware to the OS + +- UEFI interface, not a specific codebase + + Can be implemented by U-Boot or Tianocore/EDK2 or others + +- Implementable and useful today + + EBBR is always defined so that current U-Boot can implement the requirements + +- OS independant + + This document may use Linux as an example but other OS's are expected + +- Multiple Architectures + + This document addresses AArch64 today but AArch32 and others are expected + +- Is designed with Embedded Hardware in mind + + Works on today's boards + + Simple low cost hardware recommendations for tomorrow's boards + + Is appropriate for boards < $10 + +- Will evolve + + Future versions will add capabilities and may tighten hardware requirements + + However, existing compliant boards will remain compliant + Comments or change requests can be sent to arm.ebbr-discuss(a)arm.com. Scope -- 2.7.4

7 years, 9 months

4
4
0 0

[PATCH] README: add latexmk for debian/ubuntu

by Bill Mills

On Ubuntu 16.04 the latexpdf target failed for me until I installed latexmk Signed-off-by: Bill Mills <wmills(a)ti.com> --- README.rst | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/README.rst b/README.rst index c53ab3f..f20ddbf 100644 --- a/README.rst +++ b/README.rst @@ -38,7 +38,8 @@ On Debian and Ubuntu :: # apt-get install python-sphinx texlive texlive-latex-extra libalgorithm-diff-perl \ - texlive-humanities texlive-generic-recommended texlive-generic-extra + texlive-humanities texlive-generic-recommended texlive-generic-extra \ + latexmk If the version of python-sphinx installed is too old, then an additional new version can be installed with the Python package installer:: -- 2.7.4

7 years, 9 months

3
2
0 0

[PATCH] Add requirements on runtime access to devices

by Grant Likely

To make it absolutely clear that runtime services cannot retain access to devices that are 'owned' by the OS, add a section spelling the situation out. Devices may be owned by the OS, or owned by runtime services, but not both. Also rework the RTC clock section to allow for the RTC being inaccessible for exactly that reason. Resolves: #1, "Need policy on sharing devices between FW and OS" Resolves: #14, "RTC should be optional" Signed-off-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely(a)arm.com> --- source/chapter2-uefi.rst | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/source/chapter2-uefi.rst b/source/chapter2-uefi.rst index 05230d2..1f37944 100644 --- a/source/chapter2-uefi.rst +++ b/source/chapter2-uefi.rst @@ -143,17 +143,34 @@ To allow Operating Systems to use 64K page mappings, UEFI 2.7, constrains all mapped 4K memory pages to have identical page attributes, within the same physical 64K page. -Real-time Clock ---------------- +Runtime Device Mappings +----------------------- + +Firmware shall not create runtime mappings, or perform any runtime IO that will +conflict with device access. +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 +conflict with transactions being performed by the OS. + +Devices that are provided to the OS (i.e., via PCIe discovery or ACPI/DT +description) shall not be access by firmware at runtime. +Similarly, devices retained by firmware (i.e., not discoverable by the OS) +shall not be accessed by the OS. + +Only devices that explicitly support concurrent access by both firmware and an +OS may be mapped at runtime by both firmware and the OS. -The Real-time Clock must be accessible via the UEFI runtime firmware, and the -following services must be provided: +Real-time Clock (RTC) +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ -- GetTime() -- SetTime() +In an embedded system design, it may not be possible to dedicate the RTC to +runtime services. e.g., The RTC may be on a shared I2C bus which runtime +services cannot access because it will conflict with the OS. -It is permissible for SetTime() to return an error on systems where the -Real-time Clock cannot be set by this call. +Firmware must provide the UEFI GetTime() and SetTime() runtime service calls, +but if an RTC isn't present, or cannot be accessed at runtime, then both calls +shall return EFI_DEVICE_ERROR. UEFI Reset and Shutdown ----------------------- -- 2.13.0

7 years, 9 months

2
1
0 0

[PATCH] Create a new chapter to discuss shared storage

by Grant Likely

Special care is needed when storage is shared between firmware and the OS. Add a chapter that discusses the issues and puts down the requirements for using shared storage. Resolves: #19 Cc: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson(a)linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely(a)arm.com> --- source/chapter2-uefi.rst | 44 ------ source/chapter4-firmware-media.rst | 267 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ source/index.rst | 1 + 3 files changed, 268 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-) create mode 100644 source/chapter4-firmware-media.rst diff --git a/source/chapter2-uefi.rst b/source/chapter2-uefi.rst index 07426a4..05230d2 100644 --- a/source/chapter2-uefi.rst +++ b/source/chapter2-uefi.rst @@ -56,50 +56,6 @@ System Volume Format The system firmware must support all partitioning standards required by the UEFI specification. -On systems where the system firmware binaries reside on the System Volume then -the System Volume must be pre-configured with a partition table and include -protective partitions to reduce risk of accidental destruction of the system -firmware. - -All pre-installed partition tables must use GPT partitioning unless -some immutable feature of the platform (such as a mask programmed boot ROM) -makes this impossible; on such platforms MBR partitioning may be -used as an alternative. - -GPT partitioning -^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ - -Any pre-installed partition table must strictly conform to the UEFI -specification and include a protective MBR authored exactly as -described in UEFI specification (hybrid partitioning schemes are not -permitted). - -Pre-installed protective partitions must have the Platform Required -Attribute Flag set. - -It is recommended that automatic system disk partitioning utilities -preserve Platform Required partitions as is, and that manual disk -partitioning utilities provide warnings and/or other safe guards to -reduce risk of accidental removal. - -MBR partitioning -^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ - -Pre-installed protective partitions should have a partition type of 0xF8 -unless some immutable feature of the platform makes this impossible. - -It is recommended that disk partitioning utilities treat such -partitions in the same manner as GPT partitions with the Platform -Required Attribute Flag set. - -It is recommended that pre-installed protective partitions that are not -type 0xF8 be located wholly within 1MB of the start of the disk. - -Automatic disk partitioning utilities shall not create partitions -within 1MB of the start of the disk. Manual disk partitioning -utilities should avoid recommending that partitions start within -1MB of the start of the disk. - UEFI Boot Services ================== diff --git a/source/chapter4-firmware-media.rst b/source/chapter4-firmware-media.rst new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f8a03db --- /dev/null +++ b/source/chapter4-firmware-media.rst @@ -0,0 +1,267 @@ +**************** +Firmware Storage +**************** + +In general, it is recommended for all platforms to store firmware images +and data on a dedicated storage device which is not accessed by the operating +system. +It is common practice to boot firmware out of a dedicated SPI flash, +while the OS is loaded from another source, whether it be SATA, SD, USB, +Network boot, or something else. + +However, many embedded systems have size, cost, or usage constraints that +make separate firmware storage unfeasible. +On such systems, firmware and the OS reside on the same media. + +Some shared media provides dedicate boot regions, but in many cases +firmware needs to reside in a normal region of storage. +Care must be taken to ensure firmware kept in normal storage does not +conflict with normal usage of the media by an OS. + +* Firmware must be stored on the media in a way that does not conflict + with normal partitioning and usage by the operating system. +* Normal operation of the OS must not interfere with firmware files +* Firmware needs a method to modify variable storage at runtime while the + OS controls access to the device + +Partitioning of Shared Storage +============================== + +Shared storage must use GPT partitioning unless the storage media provides +device-native partitioning [#UFSparts]_, +or if an immutable property of the platform (ex. the masked boot ROM) +is incompatible with the SoC boot ROM). +MBR partitioning shall be used when the platform is incompatible with GPT. + +.. warning:: + + MBR partitioning is deprecated and only included for legacy support. + All new platforms are expected to use either GPT or device-native + partitioning. + + GPT partitioning supports a much larger number of partitions, and + has build in redundancy by storing two copies of the partition table. + + A future issue of this specification will remove the MBR allowance. + +All firmware images and data stored in normal media should be contained +in a regular partition, +which can either be a dedicated firmware partition, +or the UEFI System Partition (ESP). + +The system should locate firmware by reading the partition table. +Using a fixed offset into the storage media is deprecated and should not +be used for new SoC designs. +If a fixed offset is required by the hardware, then it is strongly recommended +for the firmware location to be covered by a protective partition to protect +against accidentally overwriting system firmware. + +.. warning:: + + Fixed offsets to firmware data is supported only for legacy reasons. + All new platforms are expected to use partitions to locate firmware files. + + A future issues of this specification will disallow the use of fixed + offsets. + +GPT partitioning +---------------- + +Any pre-installed partition table must strictly conform to the UEFI +specification and include a protective MBR authored exactly as +described in UEFI specification (hybrid partitioning schemes are not +permitted). + +Pre-installed protective partitions must have the Platform Required +Attribute Flag set. + +It is recommended that automatic system disk partitioning utilities +preserve Platform Required partitions as is, and that manual disk +partitioning utilities provide warnings and/or other safe guards to +reduce risk of accidental removal. + +The system should locate firmware images by searching for partitions with +the following UUIDs in order: + +.. table:: + + ==================================== ======== ======================== + UUID Priority Description + ==================================== ======== ======================== + Vendor defined UUID 1 (Not recommended) + Proprietary vendor + dedicated firmware + partition. Should only + be used if firmware + cannot use a FAT + filesystem. + TBD 2 EBBR compliant dedicated + firmware partition + C12A7328-F81F-11D2-BA4B-00A0C93EC93B 3 UEFI System Partition + as defined in + UEFI § 5.3.3 + ==================================== ======== ======================== + +.. note:: + + Should the vendor defined UUID be included in this table at all? + +MBR partitioning +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ + +Pre-installed protective partitions should have a partition type of 0xF8 +unless some immutable feature of the platform makes this impossible. + +It is recommended that disk partitioning utilities treat such +partitions in the same manner as GPT partitions with the Platform +Required Attribute Flag set. + +It is recommended that pre-installed protective partitions that are not +type 0xF8 be located wholly within 1MB of the start of the disk. + +Automatic disk partitioning utilities shall not create partitions +within 1MB of the start of the disk. Manual disk partitioning +utilities should avoid recommending that partitions start within +1MB of the start of the disk. + +.. [#UFSParts] For example, Universal Flash Storage (UFS) provides + device-native partitioning and does not require a discrete MBR or + GPT partition table. + +Firmware Partition Filesystem +============================= + +Where possible, firmware images and data should be stored in a filesystem. +Firmware can be stored either in a dedicated firmware partition, +or in certain circumstances in the UEFI System Partition (ESP). +Using a filesystem makes it simpler to manage multiple firmware file and +makes it possible for a single disk image to contain firmware for multiple +platforms. + +Dedicated firmware partitions are recommended to be formatted with a FAT +filesystem as defined by the UEFI specification. +However, dedicated firmware partition must not be used as an ESP. +EFI binaries in a dedicated firmware partition should be ignored +by default. + +When firmware is stored in the ESP, the ESP must contain a partition named +``/FIRMWARE`` in the root directory. +Dedicated firmware partitions should use the same ``/FIRMWARE`` hierarchy. +All firmware images and data must be stored in platform vendor +subdirectories under ``/FIRMWARE``. + +Vendors may choose their own subdirectory name under ``/FIRMWARE``, +but must choose names the do not conflict with other vendors. +Normally the vendor name will be the name of the SoC vendor, because the +firmware directory name will be hard coded in the SoC's boot ROM. +Vendors are recommended to use their Devicetree vendor prefix as their +vendor subdirectory name. + +Vendors are free to decide how to structure subdirectories under their +own vendor directory, but they must use a naming convention that allows +multiple SoCs to be supported in the same filesystem. + +For example, a vendor named Acme with two SoCs, ACME100 & AM300, could +choose to use the SoC part number as a subdirectory in the firmware path:: + + /FIRMWARE + /ACME + /ACME100 + fw.img + /ACME300 + fw.img + +It is also recommended for dedicated firmware partitions to use the +``/FIRMWARE`` file hierarchy. + +The following is a sample directory structure for firmware files:: + + /FIRMWARE + /<Vendor 1 Directory> + /<SoC A Directory> + <Firmware image> + <Firmware data> + /<SoC B Directory> + <Firmware image> + <Firmware data> + /<Vendor 2 Directory> + <Common Firmware image> + <Common Firmware data> + /<Vendor 3 Directory> + /<SoC E Directory> + <Firmware image> + +Operating systems and installers should not manipulate any files in the +``/FIRMWARE`` hierarchy during normal operation. + +.. todo: + + * Recommend failover A/B image layout to protect against corrupted + firmware. + * Define firmware update procedure. In what circumstances could an + OS automatically update firmware files in ``/FIRMWARE``? + +The sections below discuss the requirements when using both fixed and +removable storage. +However, it should be noted that the recommended behaviour of firmware +should be identical regardless of storage type. +In both cases, the recommended boot sequence is to first search for firmware +in a dedicated firmware partition, and second search for firmware in the +ESP. +The only difference between fixed and removable storage is the recommended +factory settings for the platform. + + +Fixed Shared Storage +-------------------- + +Fixed storage is storage that is permanently attached to the platform, +and cannot be moved between systems. +eMMC and Universal Flash Storage (UFS) device are often used as +shared fixed storage for both firmware and the OS. + +Where possible, it is prefered for the system to boot from a dedicated boot +region on media that provides one (ex. eMMC) that is sufficiently large. +Otherwise, the platform storage should be pre-formatted in the factory with +a partition table, a dedicated firmware partition, and firmware binaries +installed. + +Operating systems must not use the dedicated firmware partition, +but shall instead create a normal ESP for installing the EFI applications +including the OS loader. +OS partitioning tools must take care not to modify or delete dedicated +firmware partitions. + +Removable Shared Storage +------------------------ + +Removable storage is any media that can be physically removed from +the system and moved to another machine as part of normal operation +(ex. SD cards, USB thumb drives, and CDs). + +There are two primary scenarios for storing firmware on removable media. + +1. Platforms that only have removable media (ex. The Raspberry Pi has an + SD card slot, but no fixed storage). +2. Recovery when on-board firmware has been corrupted. If firmware on + fixed media has been corrupted, some platforms support loading firmware + from removable media which can then be used to recover the platform. + +In both cases, it is desirable to start with a stock OS boot image, +copy it to the media (SD or USB), and then add the necessary firmware files +to make the platform bootable. +Typically, OS boot images won't include a dedicated firmware partition, +and it is inconvenient to repartition the media to add one. +It is simpler and easier for the user if they are able to copy +the required firmware files into the ``/FIRMWARE`` directory tree on the ESP +using the basic file manager tools provided by all desktop operating systems. + +On removable media, firmware should be stored in the ESP under the +``/FIRMWARE`` directory structure as described above. +Platform vendors should support their platform by providing a single +.zip file that places all the required firmware files in the correct +locations when extracted in the ESP ``/FIRMWARE`` directory. +For simplicity sake, it is expected the same .zip file will recover the +firmware files in a dedicated firmware partition. + + diff --git a/source/index.rst b/source/index.rst index 5ddd19f..8099ac6 100644 --- a/source/index.rst +++ b/source/index.rst @@ -37,5 +37,6 @@ Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA. chapter1-about chapter2-uefi chapter3-secureworld + chapter4-firmware-media appendix-a-uefi-features references -- 2.13.0

7 years, 9 months

3
5
0 0

[PATCH v2] Create a new chapter to discuss shared storage

by Grant Likely

Special care is needed when storage is shared between firmware and the OS. Add a chapter that discusses the issues and puts down the requirements for using shared storage. v2: - Remove table of firmware partition types as unnecessary at this point - Remove most of the UFS native partitioning discussion. Native partitioning is akin to SCSI Logical Units (LU) which can effectively be treated as independent devices with their own partition table. No need to handle them specially. - Tighten up language to be more specific. Resolves: #19 Cc: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson(a)linaro.org> Cc: Rob Herring <robh(a)kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely(a)arm.com> --- source/chapter1-about.rst | 5 + source/chapter2-uefi.rst | 44 ------- source/chapter4-firmware-media.rst | 245 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ source/index.rst | 1 + 4 files changed, 251 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-) create mode 100644 source/chapter4-firmware-media.rst diff --git a/source/chapter1-about.rst b/source/chapter1-about.rst index 125e400..d713cf3 100644 --- a/source/chapter1-about.rst +++ b/source/chapter1-about.rst @@ -91,6 +91,11 @@ This document uses the following terms and abbreviations. execute Secure Monitor code, which handles the transitions between Non-secure and Secure states. EL3 is always in Secure state. + Logical Unit (LU) + A logical unit (LU) is an externally addressable, independent entity + within a device. In the context of storage, a single device may use + logical units to provide multiple independent storage areas. + OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer. In this document, the final device manufacturer. diff --git a/source/chapter2-uefi.rst b/source/chapter2-uefi.rst index 07426a4..05230d2 100644 --- a/source/chapter2-uefi.rst +++ b/source/chapter2-uefi.rst @@ -56,50 +56,6 @@ System Volume Format The system firmware must support all partitioning standards required by the UEFI specification. -On systems where the system firmware binaries reside on the System Volume then -the System Volume must be pre-configured with a partition table and include -protective partitions to reduce risk of accidental destruction of the system -firmware. - -All pre-installed partition tables must use GPT partitioning unless -some immutable feature of the platform (such as a mask programmed boot ROM) -makes this impossible; on such platforms MBR partitioning may be -used as an alternative. - -GPT partitioning -^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ - -Any pre-installed partition table must strictly conform to the UEFI -specification and include a protective MBR authored exactly as -described in UEFI specification (hybrid partitioning schemes are not -permitted). - -Pre-installed protective partitions must have the Platform Required -Attribute Flag set. - -It is recommended that automatic system disk partitioning utilities -preserve Platform Required partitions as is, and that manual disk -partitioning utilities provide warnings and/or other safe guards to -reduce risk of accidental removal. - -MBR partitioning -^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ - -Pre-installed protective partitions should have a partition type of 0xF8 -unless some immutable feature of the platform makes this impossible. - -It is recommended that disk partitioning utilities treat such -partitions in the same manner as GPT partitions with the Platform -Required Attribute Flag set. - -It is recommended that pre-installed protective partitions that are not -type 0xF8 be located wholly within 1MB of the start of the disk. - -Automatic disk partitioning utilities shall not create partitions -within 1MB of the start of the disk. Manual disk partitioning -utilities should avoid recommending that partitions start within -1MB of the start of the disk. - UEFI Boot Services ================== diff --git a/source/chapter4-firmware-media.rst b/source/chapter4-firmware-media.rst new file mode 100644 index 0000000..604df18 --- /dev/null +++ b/source/chapter4-firmware-media.rst @@ -0,0 +1,245 @@ +**************** +Firmware Storage +**************** + +In general, EBBR compliant platforms should use dedicated storage for boot +firmware images and data, +independent of the storage used for OS partitions and the ESP. +This could be a physically separate device (e.g. SPI flash), +or a dedicated logical unit (LU) within a device +(e.g. eMMC boot partition, [#eMMCBootPartition]_ +or UFS boot LU [#LogicalUnitNote]_). + +However, many embedded systems have size, cost, or implementation +constraints that make separate firmware storage unfeasible. +On such systems, firmware and the OS reside in the same storage device. +Care must be taken to ensure firmware kept in normal storage does not +conflict with normal usage of the media by an OS. + +* Firmware must be stored on the media in a way that does not conflict + with normal partitioning and usage by the operating system. +* Normal operation of the OS must not interfere with firmware files. +* Firmware needs a method to modify variable storage at runtime while the + OS controls access to the device. [#LUVariables]_ + +.. [#eMMCBootPartition] Watch out for the ambiguity of the word 'partition'. + In most of this document, a 'partition' is a contiguous region of a block + device as described by a GPT or MBR partition table, + but eMMC devices also provide a dedicated 'boot partition' that is addressed + separately from the main storage region, and does not appear in the + partition table. + +.. [#LogicalUnitNote] For the purposes of this document, logical units are + treated as independent storage devices, each with their own GPT or MBR + partition table. + A platform that uses one LU for firmware, and another LU for OS partitions + and the ESP is considered to be using dedicated firmware storage. + +.. [#LUVariables] Runtime access to firmware data may still be an issue when + firmware is stored in a dedicated LU, simply because the OS remains in + control of the storage device command stream. If firmware doesn't have + a dedicated channel to the storage device, then the OS must proxy all + runtime storage IO. + +Partitioning of Shared Storage +============================== + +A shared storage device shall use GPT partitioning unless it is incompatible +with the platform boot sequence. +In which case, MBR partitioning shall be used. [#MBRReqExample]_ + +.. [#MBRReqExample] For example, if the boot ROM doesn't understand GPT + partitioning, and will only work with an MBR, then the storage must be + partitioned using an MBR. + +.. warning:: + + MBR partitioning is deprecated and only included for legacy support. + All new platforms are expected to use GPT partitioning. + GPT partitioning supports a much larger number of partitions, and + has built in resiliency. + + A future issue of this specification will remove the MBR allowance. + +Firmware images and data in shared storage should be contained +in partitions described by the GPT or MBR. +The platform should locate firmware by searching the partition table for +the partition(s) containing firmware. + +However, some SoCs load firmware from a fixed offset into the storage media. +In this case, to protect against partitioning tools overwriting firmware, the +firmware image shall either reside entirely within the first 1MiB of storage, +or should be covered by a protective partition entry in the partition table as +described in sections :ref:`section-gpt-parts` and :ref:`section-mbr-parts`. + +Automatic partitioning tools (e.g. an OS installer) must not create +partitions within the first 1MiB of storage, or delete, move, or modify +protective partition entries. +Manual partitioning tools should provide warnings when modifying +protective partitions or creating partitions within the first 1MiB. + +.. warning:: + + Fixed offsets to firmware data is supported only for legacy reasons. + All new platforms are expected to use partitions to locate firmware files. + + A future issues of this specification will disallow the use of fixed + offsets. + +.. _section-gpt-parts: + +GPT partitioning +---------------- + +The partition table must strictly conform to the UEFI specification and include +a protective MBR authored exactly as described in [UEFI]_ § 5 (hybrid +partitioning schemes are not permitted). + +Protective partitions must have the Platform Required Attribute Flag set. + +.. _section-mbr-parts: + +MBR partitioning +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ + +Protective partitions should have a partition type of 0xF8 unless some +immutable feature of the platform makes this impossible. + +.. _section-fw-partition-fs: + +Firmware Partition Filesystem +============================= + +Where possible, firmware images and data should be stored in a filesystem. +Firmware can be stored either in a dedicated firmware partition, +or in certain circumstances in the UEFI System Partition (ESP). +Using a filesystem makes it simpler to manage multiple firmware files and +makes it possible for a single disk image to contain firmware for multiple +platforms. + +When firmware is stored in the ESP, the ESP should contain a partition named +``/FIRMWARE`` in the root directory, +and all firmware images and data should be stored in platform vendor +subdirectories under ``/FIRMWARE``. + +Dedicated firmware partitions should be formatted with a FAT +filesystem as defined by the UEFI specification. +Dedicated firmware partitions should use the same ``/FIRMWARE`` directory +hierarchy. +OS tools shall ignore dedicated firmware partitions, +and shall not attempt to use a dedicated firmware partition as an ESP. + +Vendors may choose their own subdirectory name under ``/FIRMWARE``, +but shall choose names the do not conflict with other vendors. +Normally the vendor name will be the name of the SoC vendor, because the +firmware directory name will be hard coded in the SoC's boot ROM. +Vendors are recommended to use their Devicetree vendor prefix as their +vendor subdirectory name. + +Vendors are free to decide how to structure subdirectories under their +own vendor directory, but they shall use a naming convention that allows +multiple SoCs to be supported in the same filesystem. + +For example, a vendor named Acme with two SoCs, AM100 & AM300, could +choose to use the SoC part number as a subdirectory in the firmware path:: + + /FIRMWARE + /ACME + /AM100 + fw.img + /AM300 + fw.img + +It is also recommended for dedicated firmware partitions to use the +``/FIRMWARE`` file hierarchy. + +The following is a sample directory structure for firmware files:: + + /FIRMWARE + /<Vendor 1 Directory> + /<SoC A Directory> + <Firmware image> + <Firmware data> + /<SoC B Directory> + <Firmware image> + <Firmware data> + /<Vendor 2 Directory> + <Common Firmware image> + <Common Firmware data> + /<Vendor 3 Directory> + /<SoC E Directory> + <Firmware image> + +Operating systems and installers should not manipulate any files in the +``/FIRMWARE`` hierarchy during normal operation. + +.. todo: + + * Recommend failover A/B image layout to protect against corrupted + firmware. + * Define firmware update procedure. In what circumstances could an + OS automatically update firmware files in ``/FIRMWARE``? + +The sections below discuss the requirements when using both fixed and +removable storage. +However, it should be noted that the recommended behaviour of firmware +should be identical regardless of storage type. +In both cases, the recommended boot sequence is to first search for firmware +in a dedicated firmware partition, and second search for firmware in the +ESP. +The only difference between fixed and removable storage is the recommended +factory settings for the platform. + + +Fixed Shared Storage +-------------------- + +Fixed storage is storage that is permanently attached to the platform, +and cannot be moved between systems. +eMMC and Universal Flash Storage (UFS) device are often used as +shared fixed storage for both firmware and the OS. + +Where possible, it is prefered for the system to boot from a dedicated boot +region on media that provides one (e.g., eMMC) that is sufficiently large. +Otherwise, the platform storage should be pre-formatted in the factory with +a partition table, a dedicated firmware partition, and firmware binaries +installed. + +Operating systems must not use the dedicated firmware partition for installing +EFI applications including, but not limited to, the OS loader and OS specific +files. Instead, a normal ESP should be created. +OS partitioning tools must take care not to modify or delete dedicated +firmware partitions. + +Removable Shared Storage +------------------------ + +Removable storage is any media that can be physically removed from +the system and moved to another machine as part of normal operation +(e.g., SD cards, USB thumb drives, and CDs). + +There are two primary scenarios for storing firmware on removable media. + +1. Platforms that only have removable media (e.g., The Raspberry Pi has an + SD card slot, but no fixed storage). +2. Recovery when on-board firmware has been corrupted. If firmware on + fixed media has been corrupted, some platforms support loading firmware + from removable media which can then be used to recover the platform. + +In both cases, it is desirable to start with a stock OS boot image, +copy it to the media (SD or USB), and then add the necessary firmware files +to make the platform bootable. +Typically, OS boot images won't include a dedicated firmware partition, +and it is inconvenient to repartition the media to add one. +It is simpler and easier for the user if they are able to copy +the required firmware files into the ``/FIRMWARE`` directory tree on the ESP +using the basic file manager tools provided by all desktop operating systems. + +On removable media, firmware should be stored in the ESP under the +``/FIRMWARE`` directory structure as described in +:ref:`section-fw-partition-fs`. +Platform vendors should support their platform by providing a single +.zip file that places all the required firmware files in the correct +locations when extracted in the ESP ``/FIRMWARE`` directory. +For simplicity sake, it is expected the same .zip file will recover the +firmware files in a dedicated firmware partition. diff --git a/source/index.rst b/source/index.rst index 5ddd19f..8099ac6 100644 --- a/source/index.rst +++ b/source/index.rst @@ -37,5 +37,6 @@ Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA. chapter1-about chapter2-uefi chapter3-secureworld + chapter4-firmware-media appendix-a-uefi-features references -- 2.13.0

7 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

EBBR Weekly - Agenda 3 May 2018

by Grant Likely

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

7 years, 10 months

1
3
0 0

Proposed EBBR Document Structure

by Grant Likely

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

7 years, 10 months

6
14
0 0

[RFC PATCH] Fill out the system firmware discussion

by Grant Likely

Add some more detail on how to handle system firmware. I'm still undecided about this, so this patch is more of an RFC discussion than a serious patch. Please comment. Cc: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson(a)linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely(a)arm.com> --- source/ebbr.rst | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 53 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/source/ebbr.rst b/source/ebbr.rst index 3998397..c24cef5 100644 --- a/source/ebbr.rst +++ b/source/ebbr.rst @@ -200,16 +200,64 @@ System Volume Format The system firmware must support all partitioning standards required by the UEFI specification. -On systems where the system firmware binaries reside on the System Volume then -the System Volume must be pre-configured with a partition table and include -protective partitions to reduce risk of accidental destruction of the system -firmware. - All pre-installed partition tables must use GPT partitioning unless some immutable feature of the platform (such as a mask programmed boot ROM) makes this impossible; on such platforms MBR partitioning may be used as an alternative. +System Firmware Partitions +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ +On systems where the system firmware binaries reside on the System Volume then +the System Volume must be pre-configured with a partition table and system +firmware binaries. + +When system firmware is located at a fixed offset, It is strongly recommended +for the partition table to include protective partitions covering the location +of firmware to reduce risk of accidental destruction of the system firmware. + +System boot ROM should obtain the system firmware partition location +by reading the partition table. +Using a fixed offset into the storage media is deprecated and should +not be used for new SoC designs. +Future issues of this specification will disallow the use of fixed offsets. + +A system firmware partition should not also be used as a EFI System +Partition (ESP). +Pre-installed system firmware partitions must not use the ESP GUID, +and OS installation tools should not install EFI executables in a system +firmware partition. + +.. todo:: + + I'm not sure if this is a good idea. It might be that EBBR should define a + common GUID for system firmware partitions. It also might be that I'm worrying + too much and it is fine to use the ESP as a system firmware partition. + This TODO note is a bit of a discussion of the options. + + Options: + + - Require ESP and SFPs to be separate + - Should a common SFP GUID be defined so a single image can hold firmware + for multiple platforms? + - Don't have to repartition to add additional platforms. + - Yet repartitioning required to add the *first* platform + - Require FAT formatting? + - Probably also requires a vendor/soc/file pathname spec to avoid + conflicts. + - OS can mount the ESP without touching SFPs. This means firmware could + perform (mediated) operations on the SPF (ex. to update variables) + without unmounting the ESP. + - Downside: Requries at least two fixed sized partitions to boot the + platform: a SFP, and the ESP. A single combined SFP+ESP would be more + efficient on space. + - Allow ESP to be used as an SFP + - Downside: Partitioning/Install tools can't simply blank the ESP to reset + to scratch + - Upside: platform firmware can be added by simply dropping files + in the ESP + - Using the ESP filesystem is a more efficient use of space. + - Still need to define pathname spec to avoid conflicts + GPT partitioning ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ -- 2.13.0

7 years, 10 months

3
3
0 0

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

boot-architecture