- boot-architecture - lists.linaro.org

ebbr: boot behaviour without persistent variables

by Leif Lindholm

I took an action last week to provide a block of text for how platforms without persistent variable storage should behave. Here's my opening play: Boot manager behaviour without persistent variable store ======================================================= Platforms that do not implement persistent variable storage must support the Removable Media Boot Behaviour as described by UEFI. Such platforms can additionally implement support for additional statically[1] defined images to be processed as SysPrep####, Driver#### and Boot### global variable entries. If present, these entries will be processed in the order specified by corresponding statically defined SysPrepOrder, DriverOrder and BootOrder global variables. Any images referred to by such variables must reside in a vendor-specific subdirectory on the EFI System Partition, as recorded in http://uefi.org/registry. /BOOT must not be used except where explicitly permitted by UEFI. Where an executable is present in the prescribed Removable Media location, boot of that must be attempted, and only after this fails should any of the Boot#### entries be processed. Statically configured BootNext, OsRecovery#### or PlatformRecovery#### entries must not be used. [1] This is worth discussing, but if we were to support dynamic creation of these, we need _very_ strict rules around it.

7 years, 4 months

8
22
0 0

Re: [RFC PATCH] driver core: make deferring probe forever optional

by Rob Herring

On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 8:25 PM, Mark Brown <broonie(a)kernel.org> wrote: > On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 07:49:57PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote: > >> I guess there's also the possibility that a single driver may want multiple >> behaviours, if e.g. if SoC variants A and B have some identical peripherals >> but slightly different pinctrl/IOMMU/etc. hardware such that A has workable >> default behaviour and can be treated as optional, whereas B absolutely must >> be controlled by the kernel for the consumers to function properly, and they >> *should* defer forever otherwise. I think that would pretty much demand some >> sort of explicitly-curated white/blacklist setup at the subsystem or driver >> level. > > Different board variants, and possibly even different bootloaders might > also be an issue here - a vendor bootloader might do pinmuxing that an > upstream bootloader doesn't for example. In some cases the pinmuxing > even depends on the boot method with things only getting configured if > the bootloader wanted to use them. I think this is going to be too big of a hammer for pinctrl at least. My current thought is to define a pinctrl DT property to indicate pins are configured already which the OS can use to decide if pinctrl is optional or not. I'd prefer to keep it simple and be a per pin controller flag even though this is quite possibly a per client or pin group state (as you say, the bootloader may only configure what it uses). Making this per pin group could be a lot of nodes and difficult to really get right without testing. Making it per pin controller could make drivers fail in less predictable ways if their pins are not configured. Rob

7 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] Booting from eMMC without the boot protocol

by Leif Lindholm

(Whoops, boot-architecture wasn't on cc on this thread, forwarding message there for public archiving. Please add arm.ebbr-discuss to cc on any replies.) On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 06:09:15PM -0400, Tom Rini wrote: > On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 10:48:11PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote: > > On 02/05/2018 22:24, Tom Rini wrote: > > >On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 08:40:42PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote: > > >> > > >>In terms of the restrictions that come from EBBR mandating GPT: > > > > > >Can we step back, why is EBBR mandating GPT? > > > > I think EBBR should recommend GPT, but allow MBR if the SoC boot masked > > rom conflicts with GPT. > > > > In the early days of GPT there was also a hybrid GPT+MBR scheme that > > could list the boot partition in the MBR, but still have a full GPT. It > > isn't pretty, but there is precidence. > > How about recommends GPT but allows MBR, no qualifiers. So, first of all - a level 0 EBBR _must_ permit MBR, since many SoCs already out there have ROMs that load firmware. Secondly, I don't know if should be within the scope of EBBR to mandate anything at all about a partitioning scheme that is not within the control of the firmware. It could mandate support in the _firmware_ for GPT partitioning. But that is already mandated by UEFI (as well as support for MBR and El Torito). But I would really like to see some note and explanation of restrictions placed on operating systems (i.e., the consumers of the guarantees provided by the document) by such behaviour in the EBBR. > As you note > there's a lot of ways to fiddle around and make it work, probably, on > all of the existing SoCs that do magic offsets. But it's a lot easier > to just allow MBR (what the SoCs were designed to have to live with) and > guide line that in this case nothing before the first 2MiB be used by > the OS. With a few more spec words around all of that so it's nice and > formal :) And if there is a corresponding EBSA coming, I would _really_ like to see some compliance level banning the reservation of LBA1-LBA33 and (-LBA1)-(-LBA33) for boot ROM use on any general-purpose block storage. Clearly not level 0, though. / Leif

7 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

DT handling, [Ref Linux-Efi]

by Udit Kumar

Hi There is bit of discussion on linux-efi too , to handle DT update I guess some members of this forum are active there too. https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-efi/msg13700.html To summaries 1/ Ownership of DTB IMO should be firmware and we should retain this ownership in EBBR as well, Any objections/thoughts ? Update 1/ Updating whole device tree from OS [Capsule update can be used ] 2/ Just modifying the device tree DTBO My preferred way to handle DTBO in firmware will be https://source.android.com/devices/architecture/dto/multiple See picture Runtime DTO implementation for multiple DTs To store this information in partition, options we have 1/ Run time variables 2/ Some driver in Linux writing to DTBO partition 3/ Some other way ?? I am not sure, if distro are updating device tree which is default shipped with board ?? Thanks Udit

7 years, 4 months

6
14
0 0

Re: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] DT handling, [Ref Linux-Efi]

by Daniel Thompson

On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 05:39:02PM -0400, Tom Rini wrote: > On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 05:12:03AM +0000, Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist) wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Udit Kumar [mailto:udit.kumar@nxp.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2018 12:26 PM > > > To: Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist) <abner.chang(a)hpe.com>; > > > Alexander Graf <agraf(a)suse.de>; William Mills <wmills(a)ti.com> > > > Cc: boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org; nd(a)arm.com; Rod Dorris > > > <rod.dorris(a)nxp.com>; arm.ebbr-discuss(a)arm.com > > > Subject: RE: DT handling, [Ref Linux-Efi] > > > > > > > We probably don't need to provide a genetic DT driver in UEFI U-Boot, > > > > instead, we will have to mention how SoC/platform vendors publish > > > > DTB/DTBO in EBBR spec. > > > > For example, > > > > The EFI_CONFIGURATION_TABLE in EFI System table could be used to > > > > publish the pointer to DTB and DTBO. Declare two GUIDs in EBBR, one > > > > for DTB another for DTBO. OS boot loader is responsible to merge > > > > DTB/DTBO according DTB/DTBO discovered in EFI Configuration Table. To > > > > read DT from EFI variable into memory, memory map to DT in EEPROM or > > > > other mechanisms is platform implementation. No matter which approach, > > > > DT producer has to create configuration table in EFI system table > > > > follow the data structure defined in EBBR. > > > > Another way instead of using GUID in configuration table is to publish > > > > DTB/DTBO in EFI device path, this way is more UEFI oriented IMO. > > > > However, we have to defined corresponding device path node in UEFI > > > > spec for DT. Similar to using system configuration table. DT producer > > > > has to install EFI device path for either DTB or DTBO. Then OS boot > > > > loaders locate those EFI device paths of DTB and DTBO and merge it. > > > > > > We are adding a requirement on OS boot loaders to merge it. > > > IMO, merging should be done by firmware itself. > > > In case, we want to host multiple distribution at same time, then this is likely > > > to go with OS boot loaders > > > > That is fine to merge DT by firmware, we still can standardize how > > UBoot merges DT in EBBR. For example, SoC and other platform UBoot > > drivers produce their DT or DTO in their own drivers. UBoot provides a > > centralized EFI DT driver to collect DT/DTO from either EFI system > > configuration table or EFI device path. Then this centralized EFI DT > > driver produces the pointer to point to final DT in EFI system > > configuration table. OS boot loader cab just check EFI system > > configuration table to retrieve DT, something like this. > > I think I need to step in here to clarify something. U-Boot drivers > don't produce a DT and while it's possible, it's generally[1] not done, > that U-Boot uses _the_ device tree that we pass along to the next stage > (we've likely filtered things out for space and added a few specific > things of our own). > > IMHO, what EBBR should cover is saying that firmware may apply overlays > because we know there's N valid use cases of taking a base and fixing it > up in both big and small ways. Then firmware will pass along to the > next stage (EFI application such as GRUB or *BSD loader or a Linux > Kernel or ...). Which bits of this discussion target level 0 and which target a later level 1? Personally I'm not sure there is enough prior art w.r.t. device tree overlay for anything much related to overlays to target level 0. In fact if we take the view that EBBR defines a contract between the system firmware and the OS then arguably DT update is also out of scope unless we are defining runtime services by which the OS can update the DT. Again not something I think is ready for level 0. To be clear I don't dispute that good system firmware should make DT update easy, simply that I'm not sure how it fits into EBBR. Daniel.

7 years, 4 months

3
4
0 0

EBBR Weekly - Notes 26 Apr 2018

by Grant Likely

# 26 April 2018 ## Attendees * Abner Chang (HPE) * Palmer Dabbelt (SiFive) * Andreas Färber (SUSE) * Alex Graf (SUSE) * Ryan Harkin (Linaro) * Rob Herring (Linaro) * Udit Kumar (NXP) * Grant Likely (Arm) * Leif Lindholm (Linaro) * Bill Mills (TI) * Tom Rini (Konsulko) * Michal Simek (Xilinx) * Daniel Thompson (Linaro) * Dong Wei (Arm) ## Agenda * Action item review * Behaviour without persistent variables * DTB Update policy/behaviour * Any other business ## Notes ### Action item review * Relicense and publish EBBR * Slipped by one week per week (progress as been made… but wheels still need to turn) * Github repo * Complete but cannot be published until relicensing action (above) is complete * Policy for sharing HW between firmware and OS * NTR, next week * Handling platforms without persistent variables * Proposed text shared on mailing list ### Behaviour without persistent variables * Grant: Role of EBBR. It **interprets** UEFI and it **restricts** UEFI (by implication to things supportable in u-boot) * Alex: * Current code in SUSE depends on no variables presented if persistent variables are not supported * would return device error for EBBR level 0 on GetVariable() * Leif: Need plan for read-only variable implementation * Daniel/Grant: No flag day. EBBR level 0 OS must be able to run on EBBR level 1 firmware. Makes above problematic. * Bill: No get/set, Get but not set, get/set-temporary, get/set-persisent * Daniel: Let's ban get/set-temporary * Leif: get/set-temporary exists in the wild (is it OK for such systems to be non compliant. * Identified scenarios: * No get/set * Get, but no set * Get & Set, but Set does not persist * Get & Set fully works * Use case 1: * Distro needs to decide how to install itself * Either using variables (standards compliant) or like removable media * Use case 2: * Use non-persistent variables to alter boot order and allow the variable to survive, in RAM, through the OS and firmware reset and allow it to select the next kernel to be booted * Bill/Daniel: Distros already have a tool that can achieve similar use-case (grub) and this is a property of the distro not a property of EBBR * Grant: [https://cateee.net/lkddb/web-lkddb/EFI_BOOTLOADER_CONTROL.html](https://cat… (not full variable support, simply a means to pass a single message bootloader, good for A/B style updates and temporary diversions of kernel under dirtect) * Leif: Boot manager behaviour without persistent variable store ======================================================== Platforms that do not implement persistent variable storage must support the Removable Media Boot Behaviour as described by UEFI. Such platforms can additionally implement support for additional statically[1] defined images to be processed as SysPrep####, Driver#### and Boot### global variable entries. If present, these entries will be processed in the order specified by corresponding statically defined SysPrepOrder, DriverOrder and BootOrder global variables. Any images referred to by such variables must reside in a vendor-specific subdirectory on the EFI System Partition, as recorded in[ http://uefi.org/registry](http://uefi.org/registry). /BOOT must not be used except where explicitly permitted by UEFI. Where an executable is present in the prescribed Removable Media location, boot of that must be attempted, and only after this fails should any of the Boot#### entries be processed. Statically configured BootNext, OsRecovery#### or PlatformRecovery#### entries must not be used. [1] This is worth discussing, but if we were to support dynamic creation of these, we need _very_ strict rules around it._ * Grant: What are the scenarios/use-cases enabled by the statically defined image support, etc. * Leif: Is this images exists then I want to run it on boot, update configuration tables, etc. * Grant: Need concrete use-cases, could ban these variables from existing unless user interferes/hacks with the bootloader (e.g. u-boot has persistent variables… its just that we cannot set them at runtime) * Grant: Can/should an EFI application be able to set variables persistently (or temporarily)? (for example configuring network booting parameters during initial commissioning) * Summary: * We follow UEFI spec w.r.t variables * Boot, OSRecover, etc variables ship undefined * Fallback to removable media boot in the absence of boot variables * Didn't catch the last one! * Leif: Did we get agreement to require that variables be persistent but only if they are set from boot services? ### Any other business * Capsule update and other runtime variables * Udit: Is this optional? Like persistent variables. * Leif: Yes, in first version we should make this optional for similar reasons to persistent variables * Leif: We **want** the runtime services to be supported long term, so we focus on optionality on a case by case basis rather than ruling them all out wholesale * Grant: Runtime services are not optional… we are simply allowing them not to work (return failed) * Udit: Also wants get/set long term 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, 4 months

1
0
0 0

Re: Question about EBBR

by Grant Likely

Hi Abner, Answers below... On 27/04/2018 07:06, Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist) wrote: > Not sure if this mail list works or not. > > Hi Grant, > GiIbert (from HPE, I think he is also in the mail list) and I are new to this discussion thread . Here are couple questions for you, your answer can give us the clear plan of EBBR spec. > > 1. I see EBBR spec on ARM web site, however seems it was released in last Sep. Any newer version of this spec? As Dong said, there is no newer version of the spec. The copy on the Arm website is only a draft release. The feedback we received on it was we need a more open process for this spec; hence this group. > 2. The purpose of EBBR is to standardize embedded system firmware on different processor archs and also intends abstract platform-specific implementations? The purpose of EBBR is to standardize the firmware interface for different platforms of the same architecture so that OS distributions can support multiple boards. For example, the SUSE AArch64 image should be able to boot on any EBBR compliant AArch64 platform (providing the SoC is supported in the SUSE kernel). Originally EBBR was only intended to address Arm platforms, but after receiving interest from other architectures we've expanded the scope. EBBR builds on existing specs, so it doesn't define a new firmware interface. Rather, it starts with the UEFI spec and adds additional requirements that are relevant for the embedded market. > 3. EBBR aligns embedded SWF with UEFI spec (minimum requirements) and leverage EDK2 implementation on uBoot? > 3-1 That is to use uBoot to initialize and boot system, but uBoot mimics UEFI protocols and EFI system table then boot to UEFI OS boot loader? > 3-2 Or, Uboot could be one of EDK2 packages, wrap the necessary Uboot drivers into UEFI protocols (like the UEFI binding on top of uBoot) and build it using EDK2 build process then generate EDK2 format system firmware? > > 3-2 makes more sense to me but not sure which one is EBBR intention. I may have more question if the intention of EBBR is 3-2. :) 3-1 is the intent. EBBR specifies UEFI, but doesn't say anything about implementation. U-Boot implements a subset of the UEFI spec which is completely independed from EDK2/Tianocore. A vendor can produce an EBBR compliant system using either U-Boot or EDK2/Tianocore. The first release of EBBR (level 0) will specify a subset of UEFI compliance. The intent is to reflect what is currently implemented in the U-Boot project. Therefore, a vendor who is currently using U-Boot firmware has an easy migration path to become EBBR compliant. UEFI support in U-Boot is rapidly evolving, so I expect future revisions of EBBR (level 1 and onwards) to require a larger subset of UEFI, with the ultimate goal of being 100% compliant to the UEFI spec. As you'll have gathered from the meeting, handling of persistent variables is an important topic right now. The UEFI spec requires the GetVariable()/SetVariable() runtime services to work, but U-Boot does not yet have the ability to set variables at runtime. Similarly, Tianocore/EDK2 on the 96Boards HiKey doesn't support setting variable at all. Therefore, EBBR needs to define the behaviour of firmware when SetVariable() does not work. Cheers, 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, 4 months

2
1
0 0

EBBR weekly meeting in 1/2 hour

by Grant Likely

Hi folks, Weekly EBBR meeting starts in about 1/2 hour. Dial in details below. Once again the agenda is very short, but I'll open it up to other topics after action item review. I think there was some interest in talking about DT overlay handling. Notes are being captured in the following Google doc. I would greatly appreciate help with taking meeting minutes. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RdlFp5SIrvjcVOGoGEFVYDsqTqFBJHugbBMV5Mu… Agenda: 1) Action item review 2) Any other business Cheers, g. Time: Every Thursday at 16:30-17:30 BST (8:30 PDT, 23:30 CST) Join by Phone +44 2033215213,, 4664465# --- Join online meeting https://meet.lync.com/armh/grant.likely/YBY93TIK Trouble Joining? Try Skype Web App https://meet.lync.com/armh/grant.likely/YBY93TIK?sl=1 Join by 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, 4 months

4
5
0 0

EBBR Weekly - Notes 12 Apr 2018

by Grant Likely

*Notes from last week's meeting:Attendees: - Alex Graf (SUSE)- Ryan Harkin (Linaro)- Rob Herring (Linaro)- Udit Kumar (NXP)- Grant Likely (Arm)- Leif Lindholm (Linaro)- Bill Mills (TI)- Tom Rini- Peter Robinson (Redhat)- Michal Simek (Xilinx)- Daniel Thompson (Linaro)- Dong Wei (Arm)Agenda: - Action item review- [Grant] publish GitHub repo with EBBR text in reStructuredText markup- [Dong] Get Arm legal approval to relicense and publish EBBR- Other business- HW IP SharingAction ItemsDateOwnerAction12-Apr-2018Grant & DongGet Arm legal approval to relicense and publish EBBR19/04/2018: Approval in process, hope to have answer by next week12-Apr-2018GrantPublish GitHub repo with EBBR text in reStructuredText markup19/04/2018: Repo is created, but cannot publish yet19-Apr-2018*new*BillWrite recommended policy for sharing HW between firmware and OS19-Apr-2018*new*LeifDocument specification text for platforms which do not support persistent variables, or do not support runtime {Get,Set}Variable() NotesAction item review - Relicensing of EBBR by ARM- Internal support is there, Grant is writing draft of legal texts- “Should be done by next week” - ;-)- Github repo with current EBBR text in reStructuredText- 50% complete- Repo is created and ready to roll but won’t hit github until it is approved by Arm legal- Expect to use github wiki, issue tracker, etc. At least for the short term.AOB - HW IP Sharing of peripherals between OS and firmware- eMMC is a good example, I2C can be another in some cases- Can EBBR help solve this issue?- Grant: One answer could be: For any of these platforms a piece of hardware should have only one master. If it is described in DT then OS has implicit permission to use and abuse it.- Grant: EBBR should not dictate having anything resident in the same exception level as the OS.- Udit: Seeking agreement that there are some devices that need to be shared. EFI runtime variables is an especially important case for EBBR- Bill: Base case is to agree with Grant… but… firmware can expose services to allow a virtual device in Linux to access features- Peter: Raspberry Pi has GPIO and ??? that is managed by the video controller, accessed from kernel by a mailbox mechanism- Peter: Arm has just released a new h/ware standard/recommendation to try and solve some of these problems- Grant: What is scope of EBBR? Allows distros to support embedded boards without cute embedded nonsense hacks. General device sharing is not in scope.- Daniel: Agree with above… except for EFI runtime variables which we would (or may) like EBBR to be able to rely on.- Grant: Try to solve this in a wider space (UEFI forum) and then EBBR can inherit the solution. - Bill: EFI runtime variables are easy if you have specific hardware that is uniquely owned by firmware (NOR flash, etc).- What are actions arising from this?- Ok not to have general solution- Action Bill Mills: Document “something” about EFI variables for EBBR spec- Leif (reluctantly) will look after take this to EFI forum (but not ready to go to forum yet)- Device tree overlays- No common method of handling device tree overlays- Peter: Alex G. and I discussed heavily at connect. Some interest in solving this within grub since no need to push things down into TianoCore/EDK2 and u-boot.- Alex: Have logic in firmware that can enumerate “Hat”s and create EFI object for them. These objects could then be backed by DTBOs - either by grabbing them from the device (EEPROM) or by a stored blob in firmware. Grub for example could then also be taught about these objects and DTBO support, so an OS could store its own overlays. EDK2 has the hat logic support today and already does create objects.- Bill: FIT handles this problem today… but also bundles in lots of other features. Not clear how distros feel about this.- Tom: Let’s focus on what EBBR dictates first!- Grant: Would like DT update to be part of EBBR but its not clear whether overlay should be in scope at all.- Q: Where do we look to find out what UEFI features u-boot supports today (Bill)- Alex: No exhaustive list of present or absent features is available. To find what is missing “all” we need to is run the SCT (self certification test) but u-boot isn’t quite capable of running that quite yet (uefi shell, a prereq, is nearly there)- Grant: What is list of platforms that are “good” for playing with EFI features. RPi?- Alex: qemu is in good condition but many other choices- Runtime variables- Daniel: If EBBR recommends no runtime variable then EBBR must recommend a protocol for distros to adopt- Grant: EBBR will never recommend no runtime variables… but it might allow it- Daniel: Agree… but even allowing forces EBBR to recommend alternative- Action (Leif, also reluctantly): Make this a bug and provide a recommendation* On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 3:59 PM, Grant Likely <grant.likely(a)arm.com> wrote: > Hi folks, > > Weekly EBBR meeting starts in about 1/2 hour. Dial in details below. > Once again the agenda is very short, but I'll open it up to other topics > after action item review. I think there was some interest in talking > about DT overlay handling. > > Notes are being captured in the following Google doc. I would greatly > appreciate help with taking meeting minutes. > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RdlFp5SIrvjcVOGoGEFVYDsq > TqFBJHugbBMV5MuXUhw/edit?usp=sharing > > Agenda: > 1) Action item review > 2) Any other business > > Cheers, > g. >

7 years, 4 months

2
1
0 0

EBBR Weekly - Agenda 26 Apr 2018

by Grant Likely

Hi folks, Next EBBR meeting is later today. Here is the agenda I have so far. Please reply with action item status updates or other business Agenda for this week's meeting: - Status updates and action item review - Behaviour without persistant variables - DTB update policy/behaviour - 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.

7 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

Notes from 12 April 2018 EBBR meeting

by Grant Likely

Here are the notes from yesterday’s meeting. Props to Daniel Thompson for taking notes! Note: I didn’t capture the full list of attendees. If you were there, but aren’t in the list then let me know so I can add you to the official list. Eventually I’ll post these notes on a wiki for the project. 12 April 2018 Attendees - Grant Likely (Arm) - Ryan Harken (Linaro) - Ruchika Gupta (NXP) - Tom Rini (Konsulko) - Peter Robinson (Red Hat) - Alex Graf (SUSE) - Daniel Thompson (Linaro) - Ben Eckermann (Incomplete list; Did not get full list of dial ins) Agenda: - Status and action item updates - Other business Notes: Status - No progress on legal issues to get things shared for outside contributions - No progress on converting EBBR to sphinx document Devicetree - Committee meeting will shrink scope to cover governanceissues (process, release process, etc). - Will be starting a regular technical sync up call soon AOB - EBBR and different architectures - Alexander Graf has started talking among u-boot team about extending linuxefi support more widely - Udit K: What to do about architectures that are not yet in UEFI? # Grant: Not really in scope for EBBR, they should work with UEFI forum - Grant: EBBR should be opt in (i.e. architecture representatives join us) rather then encompassing “everything” - Udit K: What about big endian? - Grant: Not UEFI… it merely looks like it. - Tom: EBBR references other specifications, needs other specifications to take big endian before we move on it - Udit K: How to handle devicetree updates? - Grant: DT owned by platform is important, not discussed how to update it - Grant: Should we create a DT specific section in EBBR? - Udit K: Ideally, yes. We understand devicetree is owned by the platform but we have had better results using the devicetree in the kernel - Peter: UEFI capsules? - Alexander: Could use overlays to cope with difference between kernels - Alexander: We cannot assume DTs will always be backwards compatible - Grant: Historically have worked to ensure new kernels work with old devicetrees but not old kernels with new DTs - Need to make sure firmware can always be recovered to a ‘safe’ state, and that DT updates don’t require reflashing the entire firmware. Action: form sub team to draft DT update requirements. When can others contribute? - Expect to get things tidied up this week but the mailing list is open please discuss things here! 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, 5 months

2
1
0 0

EBBR weekly meeting in a few minutes

by Grant Likely

Hi folks, Weekly EBBR meeting starts in a few minutes. I'm expecting this one to be short. I've only got action item updates on the agenda, but Dong is still away and I haven't got a skeleton project posted yet. However, I'll open it up to other items that any of you want to discuss. Cheers, g. Time: Every Thursday at 16:30-17:30 BST (8:30 PDT, 23:30 CST) Join by Phone +44 2033215213,, 4664465# https://meet.lync.com/armh/grant.likely/YBY93TIK --- Join online meeting https://meet.lync.com/armh/grant.likely/YBY93TIK Trouble Joining? Try Skype Web App https://meet.lync.com/armh/grant.likely/YBY93TIK?sl=1 Join by 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. _______________________________________________ boot-architecture mailing list boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture 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, 5 months

2
1
0 0

EBBR weekly meeting details (Every Thursday)

by Grant Likely

Time: Every Thursday at 16:30-17:30 BST (8:30 PDT, 23:30 CST) Join by Phone +44 2033215213,, 4664465# https://meet.lync.com/armh/grant.likely/YBY93TIK This is a weekly status call for the EBBR drafting process that came out of a discussion at Linaro Connect HKG18 in March this year. As mentioned in the notes[1] from that meeting, there is a desire to have EBBR published in time for it to be used by an upcoming 96Boards specification, due to be released in about 6 months time. This meeting is a regular status update to track progress on EBBR development. I will endeavour to keep it short when there isn’t much to discuss. I expect initially there will be a lot to discuss to get the ball rolling, and then will taper off. 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. [1] https://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/boot-architecture/2018-April/000419.html --- Join online meeting https://meet.lync.com/armh/grant.likely/YBY93TIK Trouble Joining? Try Skype Web App https://meet.lync.com/armh/grant.likely/YBY93TIK?sl=1 Join by 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.

7 years, 5 months

1
1
0 0

Canceled: EBBR Kickoff Meeting

by Grant Likely

This is a follow-up from the EBBR discussion that happened at Linaro Connect 2 weeks ago. As mentioned in the notes[1] from that meeting, there is a desire to have EBBR published in time for it to be used by an upcoming 96Boards specification, due to be released in about 6 months time. This meeting is a regular status update to track progress on EBBR development. I will endeavour to keep it short when there isn’t much to discuss. I expect initially there will be a lot to discuss to get the ball rolling. 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. ......................................................................................................................................... Join online meeting https://meet.lync.com/armh/grant.likely/Q77FJZY5 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: 22233117 Forgot your dial-in PIN? https://dialin.lync.com/7bdb65cd-97d0-44fe-bc03-bf8072eadc33 ......................................................................................................................................... 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, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Canceled: EBBR Kickoff Meeting

by Grant Likely

This is a follow-up from the EBBR discussion that happened at Linaro Connect 2 weeks ago. As mentioned in the notes[1] from that meeting, there is a desire to have EBBR published in time for it to be used by an upcoming 96Boards specification, due to be released in about 6 months time. This meeting is a regular status update to track progress on EBBR development. I will endeavour to keep it short when there isn’t much to discuss. I expect initially there will be a lot to discuss to get the ball rolling. 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. ......................................................................................................................................... Join online meeting https://meet.lync.com/armh/grant.likely/Q77FJZY5 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: 22233117 Forgot your dial-in PIN? https://dialin.lync.com/7bdb65cd-97d0-44fe-bc03-bf8072eadc33 ......................................................................................................................................... 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, 5 months

2
1
0 0

EBBR Kickoff Meeting

by Grant Likely

This is a followup from the EBBR discussion that happened at Linaro Connect 2 weeks ago. As mentioned in the notes[1] from that meeting, there is a desire to have EBBR published in time for it to be used by an upcoming 96Boards specification, due to be released in about 6 months time. This meeting is a regular status update to track progress on EBBR development. I will endeavour to keep it short when there isn’t much to discuss. I expect initially there will be a lot to discuss to get the ball rolling. Anyone is welcome to join. Feel free to pass this invitation along. Let me know if anyone has trouble dialing/connecting to the SfB bridge. [1] was posted to boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org<mailto:boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org>, but hasn’t shown up in the archive yet. I’ll get that sorted out so that there is a public copy. g. ......................................................................................................................................... Join online meeting https://meet.lync.com/armh/grant.likely/Q77FJZY5 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: 22233117 Forgot your dial-in PIN? https://dialin.lync.com/7bdb65cd-97d0-44fe-bc03-bf8072eadc33 ......................................................................................................................................... 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, 5 months

2
1
0 0

Resend: Next steps for EBBR

by Grant Likely

I'm resending these notes to the list because the boot-architecture list rejected it the first time around. Resending so it appears in the archive. g. --- Hi folks, At Linaro Connect in Hong Kong this week there has been some EBBR (Embedded Base Boot Requirements) discussions. One of the interesting angles that came up is that the 96Boards project would like to specify EBBR in an upcoming specification, so they need EBBR to be published and realistic. The Fedora and SuSE representatives are very supportive of that notion, because it gives them a path to support boards conforming to that spec. A few of us here had a quick meeting to work out how we could make that happen. Attendees: Alexander Graf (SuSE) Grant Likely (Arm) Bill Mills (TI) Peter Robinson (Red Hat/Fedora) Dong Wei (Arm) Yang Zhang (Linaro/96Boards) Notes: - We discussed the purpose & intent of EBBR - Is intended to document the basic requirements on firmware to implement a 'standard' boot path on embedded boards. - Needed by distros (Fedora, SuSE, Debian, etc) to support boards out of the box - Needed by OpenEmbedded, Yocto, etc to get away from custom platform specific hacks - Establishes a foundation for implementing SecureBoot, A/B updates, and other useful boot scenarios in a consistent way. - We expect the primary users of EBBR will be embedded & developer Arm boards using U-Boot firmware and Devicetree machine description - We expect a distribution will be able to use the same software (Distro Installer, Grub, Linux UEFI stub, Shim), and the same media (installer images) on both embedded and server platforms - We discussed what EBBR should contain - Will document interfaces and standards; not specific projects - Will specify a subset of the UEFI specification. - Boot services are in - Runtime services can be implemented with empty stubs - Need to work out what to do with runtime setting of variables - For the first release ("EBBR level 0"), it will track features available in upstream - In concrete terms this means EBBR can be implemented with upstream U-Boot or Tianocore. - Subsequent releases will refine the requirements as needed and as software improves - Expected target audience - embedded board vendors - Gives strong guidance on how to make a widely supported board - Linux distributions - Can make EBBR compliance a requirement for support - End users - EBBR will make it simpler to use embedded Arm boards because each board will not require special setup instructions or image formats - Roadmap - 96Boards wants to specify EBBR compliance in an upcoming spec to be announced at Linaro Connect in the fall (about 6 months time) - Need to have general agreement on the content of EBBR well before that (2-3 months?) - Need to have a final EBBR 1.0 release before the 96Boards spec announcement - Work items: - Transcode existing EBBR draft into text markup and check into Git repo - Review current EBBR draft and compare with available U-Boot functionality - Identify changes required to EBBR spec - Identify gaps in U-Boot functionality that can reasonably be ad Open Questions: - Can the EBBR document be drafted in public? (Dong to follow up internally at Arm) - Where do the Engineering resources come from to make EBBR a reality - General call for engineering effort to be committed by interested parties Actions: - Dong to have Arm internal discussion about moving EBBR draft process onto GitHub or similar - Markup candidate: Sphinx-doc with reStructuredText markup - Grant to organize a regular weekly meeting to track EBBR drafting process - Make sure to include Tom Rini and Ard Biesheuvel - Yang to socialize with 96Boards partners to prepare them for EBBR compliance - (Unassigned) Create a hosting page with issue tracker for EBBR -- TBD after Dong finishes internal due diligence on moving EBBR drafting to a public repository - Probably GitHub

7 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] Next steps for EBBR

by Grant Likely

On 04/04/2018 15:12, Mills, William wrote: > Grant, > > None of this is archived at: > https://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/boot-architecture/ > (even the stuff that explicitly cc'ed the list) Hmmm. I don't know what has happened there. I just got Linaro to reset the admin password of that list, and I've cc'd this message to the list as a test. I'll track down the problem. > Why did we switch to an @arm.com list? Is there a public archive? Can anyone opt in or is this invite only? > We should use open tools for an open standard. boot-architecture was originally cc'd because it has a public archive. I do not intend for any of this discussion to be on a list without an archive. g. > > Thanks, > Bill > > -----Original Message----- > From: arm.ebbr-discuss-bounces(a)arm.com [mailto:arm.ebbr-discuss-bounces@arm.com] On Behalf Of Grant Likely > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 5:52 PM > To: arm.ebbr-discuss(a)arm.com; Da Xue > Subject: Re: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] Next steps for EBBR > > On 29/03/2018 22:24, Da Xue wrote: >>> We expect the primary users of EBBR will be embedded & developer Arm >>> boards using U-Boot firmware and Devicetree machine description My >>> concern is around device tree and EFI variable storage for u-boot on flash. >> >> The two elephants in the room. How to handle device tree updates? Do >> we track mainline? How to handle detection and addition of overlays? > > Certainly issues to discuss while drafting EBBR. > >>> We expect a distribution will be able to use the same software >>> (Distro Installer, Grub, Linux UEFI stub, Shim), and the same media >>> (installer images) on both embedded and server platforms >> >> Are you referring to SBSA when you say "server platforms"? I don't see >> why this has to be the case. > > Yes, I'm talking about SBSA/SBBR compliant platforms. EBBR will require a subset of what SBBR requires; essentially just enough of the UEFI spec to execute a UEFI OS Loader from media or the network. U-Boot implements this today, and a distro would be able to use the exact same OSLoader/Installer on both SBSA/SBBR systems and EBBR systems. That's part of the point of this exercise. > > What do you mean when you say, "don't see why this has to be the case?" > What do you see as the alternative? > >> >>> Linux distributions - Can make EBBR compliance a requirement for >>> support >> >> Vendors haven't standardized boot rom sequence. Some SoC boot from SPI >> first, other eMMC, and others SD card. This is a major pain point that >> ARM/Linaro should address. I don't see why distributions should force >> EBBR compliance when a simple u-boot script loading or scanning for a >> Linux EFI stub suffices unless EBBR is incredibly simple and small. I >> need to emphasize the simple and small part because it will also allow >> EBBR to scale up and down. > > Shouldn't be an issue for EBBR. EBBR is focused on the Firmware->OS interface. It doesn't matter where the SoC boots U-Boot or Tianocore from as long as firmware presents a consistent interface beyond that point. > > It also doesn't matter how U-Boot implements the boot interface. If the U-Boot developers think a U-Boot script that searches for OS Loaders in the correct order is the best implementation, then that is just fine. > > What is important is that the OS image must not need to contain anything special in order to boot. ie. It must not require a script to be installed on the media because the UEFI spec already specifies how to find the boot program. > >> >>> End users - EBBR will make it simpler to use embedded Arm boards because >>> each board will not require special setup instructions or image >>> formats >> >> Distributions will still need to explicitly have SoC family support in >> their kernels. > > Yes, that is a given. > >> It would be a lot of work (that will never get done) for >> SoC vendors to abstract device classes and functions like Intel has for >> UEFI. > > For the boot time environment the abstractions are already there. U-Boot > implements the needed abstractions in the form of the U-Boot device > drivers. The UEFI APIs are mapped directly onto the U-Boot device model. > > For runtime services you're right. There is no plan to implement a > runtime abstract device driver model. > >> >> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 6:47 AM, Grant Likely <grant.likely(a)arm.com >> <mailto:grant.likely@arm.com>> wrote: >> >> On 29/03/2018 10:06, Alexander Graf wrote: >> >> Does Windows for IoT run in aarch64 mode by now? If not, we >> might have a problem :). >> >> >> I wouldn't call that a problem. It is up to Microsoft on whether or >> not they care about an aarch64 port of Windows IoT. They may still >> find EBBR useful for aarch32, and the whole point of having them >> involved is they can share what they think would be valuable to have >> in the spec. >> >> Cheers, >> g. >> >> >> >> Alex >> >> Am 29.03.2018 um 09:34 schrieb Charles Garcia-Tobin >> <Charles.Garcia-Tobin(a)arm.com >> <mailto:Charles.Garcia-Tobin@arm.com>>: >> >> Nice! >> >> On 29/03/2018, 06:14, "arm.ebbr-discuss-bounces(a)arm.com >> <mailto:arm.ebbr-discuss-bounces@arm.com> on behalf of Dong >> Wei" <arm.ebbr-discuss-bounces(a)arm.com >> <mailto:arm.ebbr-discuss-bounces@arm.com> on behalf of >> Dong.Wei(a)arm.com <mailto:Dong.Wei@arm.com>> wrote: >> >> I presented EBBR and its intent at the UEFI Plugfest >> this week. Microsoft people in attendance seemed very >> interested. They are to follow up with their IoT team to see >> if they would be interested in working with us on this... >> >> - DW >> - >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Grant Likely >> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 8:57 AM >> To: arm.ebbr-discuss <arm.ebbr-discuss(a)arm.com >> <mailto:arm.ebbr-discuss@arm.com>> >> Cc: Alexander Graf <agraf(a)suse.de >> <mailto:agraf@suse.de>>; wmills(a)ti.com >> <mailto:wmills@ti.com>; Dong Wei <Dong.Wei(a)arm.com >> <mailto:Dong.Wei@arm.com>>; Yang Zhang >> <yang.zhang(a)96boards.org <mailto:yang.zhang@96boards.org>>; >> Peter Robinson <pbrobinson(a)redhat.com >> <mailto:pbrobinson@redhat.com>>; Ard Biesheuvel >> <ard.biesheuvel(a)linaro.org >> <mailto:ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>>; rob.herring(a)linaro.org >> <mailto:rob.herring@linaro.org>; Tom Rini >> <trini(a)konsulko.com <mailto:trini@konsulko.com>>; >> boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org >> <mailto:boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org> >> Subject: Next steps for EBBR >> >> Hi folks, >> >> At Linaro Connect in Hong Kong this week there has been >> some EBBR (Embedded Base Boot Requirements) discussions. One >> of the interesting angles that came up is that the 96Boards >> project would like to specify EBBR in an upcoming >> specification, so they need EBBR to be published and >> realistic. The Fedora and SuSE representatives are very >> supportive of that notion, because it gives them a path to >> support boards conforming to that spec. A few of us here had >> a quick meeting to work out how we could make that happen. >> >> I'm sending this to the EBBR alias, but I'm also cc'ing >> the boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org >> <mailto:boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org> mailing list so >> that we've got an archive. >> >> Attendees: >> Alexander Graf (SuSE) >> Grant Likely (Arm) >> Bill Mills (TI) >> Peter Robinson (Red Hat/Fedora) >> Dong Wei (Arm) >> Yang Zhang (Linaro/96Boards) >> >> Notes: >> - We discussed the purpose & intent of EBBR >> - Is intended to document the basic requirements on >> firmware to >> implement a 'standard' boot path on embedded boards. >> - Needed by distros (Fedora, SuSE, Debian, etc) to >> support boards out >> of the box >> - Needed by OpenEmbedded, Yocto, etc to get away >> from custom platform >> specific hacks >> - Establishes a foundation for implementing >> SecureBoot, A/B updates, >> and other useful boot scenarios in a consistent way. >> - We expect the primary users of EBBR will be >> embedded & developer Arm >> boards using U-Boot firmware and Devicetree >> machine description >> - We expect a distribution will be able to use the >> same software >> (Distro Installer, Grub, Linux UEFI stub, Shim), >> and the same media >> (installer images) on both embedded and server >> platforms >> >> - We discussed what EBBR should contain >> - Will document interfaces and standards; not >> specific projects >> - Will specify a subset of the UEFI specification. >> - Boot services are in >> - Runtime services can be implemented with empty stubs >> - Need to work out what to do with runtime setting >> of variables >> - For the first release ("EBBR level 0"), it will >> track features >> available in upstream >> - In concrete terms this means EBBR can be >> implemented with upstream >> U-Boot or Tianocore. >> - Subsequent releases will refine the requirements >> as needed and as >> software improves >> >> - Expected target audience >> - embedded board vendors - Gives strong guidance on >> how to make a >> widely supported board >> - Linux distributions - Can make EBBR compliance a >> requirement for >> support >> - End users - EBBR will make it simpler to use >> embedded Arm boards >> because each board will not require special setup >> instructions or >> image formats >> >> - Roadmap >> - 96Boards wants to specify EBBR compliance in an >> upcoming spec to be >> announced at Linaro Connect in the fall (about 6 >> months time) >> - Need to have general agreement on the content of >> EBBR well before >> that (2-3 months?) >> - Need to have a final EBBR 1.0 release before the >> 96Boards spec >> announcement >> - Work items: >> - Transcode existing EBBR draft into text markup >> and check into Git >> repo >> - Review current EBBR draft and compare with >> available U-Boot >> functionality >> - Identify changes required to EBBR spec >> - Identify gaps in U-Boot functionality that can >> reasonably be >> addressed in the EBBR v1.0 timeframe >> - Draft roadmap of goals - particularly focusing >> on functionality >> required by Linux distributions >> - Stand up issue tracker (GitHub?) >> >> Open Questions: >> - Can the EBBR document be drafted in public? (Dong to >> follow up >> internally at Arm) >> - Where do the Engineering resources come from to make >> EBBR a reality >> - General call for engineering effort to be >> committed by interested >> parties >> - Can we use a cut-down LuvOS or UEFI SCT as a >> specification conformance >> test suite? >> >> Actions: >> - Dong to have Arm internal discussion about moving >> EBBR draft process >> onto GitHub or similar >> - Markup candidate: Sphinx-doc with reStructuredText >> markup >> - Grant to organize a regular weekly meeting to track >> EBBR drafting >> process >> - Make sure to include Tom Rini and Ard Biesheuvel >> - Yang to socialize with 96Boards partners to prepare >> them for EBBR >> compliance >> - (Unassigned) Create a hosting page with issue tracker >> for EBBR -- TBD >> after Dong finishes internal due diligence on moving >> EBBR drafting to >> a public repository >> - Probably GitHub >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Arm.ebbr-discuss mailing list >> Arm.ebbr-discuss(a)arm.com <mailto:Arm.ebbr-discuss@arm.com> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Arm.ebbr-discuss mailing list >> Arm.ebbr-discuss(a)arm.com <mailto:Arm.ebbr-discuss@arm.com> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Arm.ebbr-discuss mailing list >> Arm.ebbr-discuss(a)arm.com <mailto:Arm.ebbr-discuss@arm.com> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Arm.ebbr-discuss mailing list >> Arm.ebbr-discuss(a)arm.com <mailto:Arm.ebbr-discuss@arm.com> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Arm.ebbr-discuss mailing list >> Arm.ebbr-discuss(a)arm.com >> > > _______________________________________________ > Arm.ebbr-discuss mailing list > Arm.ebbr-discuss(a)arm.com > 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, 5 months

1
1
0 0

Test

by Grant Likely

Please ignore this message. I'm testing the mailing list. 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, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Issue for BEAGLE BONE BLACK - bootup with UEFI

by Mohan Rao .vanimina

Hi Team, When trying to boot-up BeagleBoneBlack Platform using UEFI with below procedure (instead of U-boot), ran into following issue. Followed Web link : https://github.com/tianocore/tianocore.github.io/wiki/BeagleBoardPkg#Beagle… I had a doubt on the provided git repository in this procedure. Does this repo supports BeagelBoneBlack Platform? *Error when Tried in Qemu: * EhcCreateUsb2Hc: capability length 0 EhcDriverBindingStart: failed to create USB2_HC ERROR: Did not find Linux kernel. [1] Linux from SD - VenHw(B615F1F5-5088-43CD-809C-A16E52487D00)/HD(1,MBR,0x00000000,0x3F,0x19FC0)/zImage - Arguments: console=tty0 console=ttyS2,115200n8 root=UUID=a4af765b-c2b5-48f4-9564-7a4e9104c4f6 rootwait ro earlyprintk - LoaderType: Linux kernel with ATAG support [2] Shell [3] Boot Manager Start: qemu: terminating on signal 2 *Error ; sd Card : **DATA abort Error coming when tried booting thru sd-card* Could you please help in debug this issue? Regards, Mohan.

7 years, 11 months

2
1
0 0

[PSCI] CPU 1 bring up while CPU 0 loading bootloader

by Atul Raut

Hi, Is there any way I can bring cpu-1 while cpu-0 is running bootloader ? Need help with setting up C-environment for cpu-1. Was able to set up PSCI framework. Regards, Atul

9 years, 11 months

1
0
0 0

Farewell - last days at ARM Ltd

by Olivier Martin

For people who does not know me I have been the EDK2 maintainer of the ARM Packages for the last 4 years. I took over the excellent work Andrew Fish and Eugene Cohen started few years before. This week was my last week at ARM - my last day would be on Friday 17th (UK time). I have been learning a lot thanks to the UEFI community. Being the ARM maintainer has been a great opportunity. I also had the chance to go to few conferences to discuss and present my work and meet few of you as part of my job. I have been asked last week what is the new exciting place that makes me leave ARM. The answer is my own future start-up... I love challenges and I think this one is definitely one of the highest one I could find. It is actually quite scary but I am quite excited! I could potentially have kept my role of EDK2 ARM maintainer with me but I would prefer to give the task to Leif Lindholm who has been a co-maintainer for almost two months. So I could fully focus on my new adventure. Leif has been seating not far from me in the ARM office. We have also had regular meetings about UEFI. He has been at ARM Ltd longer than me and been involved in different Open Source projects. He has also been working on UEFI for Linaro for few (three?) years now. I have been trying to publish as much work as I can on the work I have done on UEFI for the last 5 years and half at ARM Ltd in the last two weeks. Unfortunately, I am not sure I will have time to publish everything. But I will do my best to publish the most important bits... Unfortunately, it is still too early to share more details about my future product, so I created a quick website (and found a neutral name) last week-end to allow people to follow the adventure: http://labapart.com/ (can either be pronounced as "Lab apart" or "Lab à Part"). If you would like to contact me, email me here: olivier.martin.fr(a)gmail.com and/or linkedin me: http://www.linkedin.com/in/olivierm. Cheers, Olivier -- 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. ARM Limited, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, Registered in England & Wales, Company No: 2557590 ARM Holdings plc, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, Registered in England & Wales, Company No: 2548782

10 years, 2 months

3
2
0 0

Ext2/Ext3 filesystem support

by Meenakshi Aggarwal

Hi, This is my first query on this list. I apologize for any mistake. I have some queries on following patch : https://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/boot-architecture/2013-June/000325.html I am not able to see this patch in master branch. Is this patch tested? Also I want to know the underline firmware volume on which this patch has been tested? Thanks & regards Meenakshi Aggarwal

10 years, 2 months

4
6
0 0

RE: AARCH64: Timer Dxe

by Sharma Bhupesh

Hi Laszlo, > -----Original Message----- > From: Laszlo Ersek [mailto:lersek@redhat.com] > Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 5:59 PM > To: Sharma Bhupesh-B45370; edk2-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net; > olivier.martin(a)arm.com; Leif Lindholm; boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org > Subject: Re: AARCH64: Timer Dxe > > On 06/13/15 10:52, Sharma Bhupesh wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Can some ARM expert help me with my queries below. > > > > The overall context is that I cannot get the 'ArmPlatformPkg/Bds/Bds.c' > auto-timeout to trigger. > > > > The following snippet of code shows how the timeout is created as a > event using the CreateEvent and SetTimer APIs. > > > > However I cannot the SetTimer API triggering a call to the > corresponding TimerDriverSetTimerPeriod API inside > 'ArmPkg/Drivers/TimerDxe/TimerDxe.c' > > Do you reach the gBS->SetTimer() call at all? For example, if there was a > non-volatile variable called Timeout, with value 0xFFFF or 0, that could > prevent it. Yes, via debugger tracing I can see that the gBS->SetTimer() call is indeed invoked and calls DXE Core's respective CoreTimerXXXX() APIs Regards, Bhupesh > > > > > if (Timeout != 0xFFFF) { > > if (Timeout > 0) { > > // Create the waiting events (keystroke and 1sec timer) > > gBS->CreateEvent (EVT_TIMER, 0, NULL, NULL, &WaitList[0]); > > gBS->SetTimer (WaitList[0], TimerPeriodic, > EFI_SET_TIMER_TO_SECOND); > > WaitList[1] = gST->ConIn->WaitForKey; > > > > // Start the timer > > WaitIndex = 0; > > Print(L"The default boot selection will start in "); > > while ((Timeout > 0) && (WaitIndex == 0)) { > > Print(L"%3d seconds",Timeout); > > gBS->WaitForEvent (2, WaitList, &WaitIndex); > > if (WaitIndex == 0) { > > Print(L"\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b"); > > Timeout--; > > } > > } > > > > So, I just wanted to understand if the auto-timeout during boot works > > on Juno-Rev1 and if yes, how does it connect to the underlying > > ArmArchTimerLib > > > > Please help. > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Sharma Bhupesh-B45370 > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 4:01 PM > >> To: edk2-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net; 'olivier.martin(a)arm.com' > >> Subject: AARCH64: Timer Dxe > >> > >> Hi Olivier, > >> > >> 1. I am looking at the 'ArmPkg/Drivers/TimerDxe/TimerDxe.c' DXE > >> driver and seeing how the timer interrupts are registered: > >> > >> // Install secure and Non-secure interrupt handlers > >> // Note: Because it is not possible to determine the security state > >> of the > >> // CPU dynamically, we just install interrupt handler for both sec > >> and non-sec > >> // timer PPI > >> Status = gInterrupt->RegisterInterruptSource (gInterrupt, PcdGet32 > >> (PcdArmArchTimerVirtIntrNum), TimerInterruptHandler); > >> ASSERT_EFI_ERROR (Status); > >> > >> Status = gInterrupt->RegisterInterruptSource (gInterrupt, PcdGet32 > >> (PcdArmArchTimerHypIntrNum), TimerInterruptHandler); > >> ASSERT_EFI_ERROR (Status); > >> > >> Status = gInterrupt->RegisterInterruptSource (gInterrupt, PcdGet32 > >> (PcdArmArchTimerSecIntrNum), TimerInterruptHandler); > >> ASSERT_EFI_ERROR (Status); > >> > >> Status = gInterrupt->RegisterInterruptSource (gInterrupt, PcdGet32 > >> (PcdArmArchTimerIntrNum), TimerInterruptHandler); > >> ASSERT_EFI_ERROR (Status); > >> > >> I wanted to understand how the Interrupt registration changes for PPI > >> or SPI interrupt sources. > >> As usually the Virtual, Hypervisor, Physical and Physical Non-Secure > >> interrupts are PPI does the PPI number need to be defined as the PCD > >> values in the same way as linux. The Linux gicv3 documentation says > >> (Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic-v3.txt): > >> > >> SPI interrupts are in the range [0-987]. PPI interrupts are in the > >> range [0-15]. > >> > >> 2. Also one related question is whether on Juno Rev1, you are able to > >> get the BootDelay to work via timer based events? If yes, can you > >> please share if you achieve this by using the ARMv8 generic timer or > >> the SP804 timer. > >> > > > > Regards, > > Bhupesh > >

10 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

RE: AARCH64: Timer Dxe

by Sharma Bhupesh

Hi, Can some ARM expert help me with my queries below. The overall context is that I cannot get the 'ArmPlatformPkg/Bds/Bds.c' auto-timeout to trigger. The following snippet of code shows how the timeout is created as a event using the CreateEvent and SetTimer APIs. However I cannot the SetTimer API triggering a call to the corresponding TimerDriverSetTimerPeriod API inside 'ArmPkg/Drivers/TimerDxe/TimerDxe.c' if (Timeout != 0xFFFF) { if (Timeout > 0) { // Create the waiting events (keystroke and 1sec timer) gBS->CreateEvent (EVT_TIMER, 0, NULL, NULL, &WaitList[0]); gBS->SetTimer (WaitList[0], TimerPeriodic, EFI_SET_TIMER_TO_SECOND); WaitList[1] = gST->ConIn->WaitForKey; // Start the timer WaitIndex = 0; Print(L"The default boot selection will start in "); while ((Timeout > 0) && (WaitIndex == 0)) { Print(L"%3d seconds",Timeout); gBS->WaitForEvent (2, WaitList, &WaitIndex); if (WaitIndex == 0) { Print(L"\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b"); Timeout--; } } So, I just wanted to understand if the auto-timeout during boot works on Juno-Rev1 and if yes, how does it connect to the underlying ArmArchTimerLib Please help. > -----Original Message----- > From: Sharma Bhupesh-B45370 > Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 4:01 PM > To: edk2-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net; 'olivier.martin(a)arm.com' > Subject: AARCH64: Timer Dxe > > Hi Olivier, > > 1. I am looking at the 'ArmPkg/Drivers/TimerDxe/TimerDxe.c' DXE driver > and seeing how the timer interrupts are registered: > > // Install secure and Non-secure interrupt handlers > // Note: Because it is not possible to determine the security state of > the > // CPU dynamically, we just install interrupt handler for both sec and > non-sec > // timer PPI > Status = gInterrupt->RegisterInterruptSource (gInterrupt, PcdGet32 > (PcdArmArchTimerVirtIntrNum), TimerInterruptHandler); > ASSERT_EFI_ERROR (Status); > > Status = gInterrupt->RegisterInterruptSource (gInterrupt, PcdGet32 > (PcdArmArchTimerHypIntrNum), TimerInterruptHandler); > ASSERT_EFI_ERROR (Status); > > Status = gInterrupt->RegisterInterruptSource (gInterrupt, PcdGet32 > (PcdArmArchTimerSecIntrNum), TimerInterruptHandler); > ASSERT_EFI_ERROR (Status); > > Status = gInterrupt->RegisterInterruptSource (gInterrupt, PcdGet32 > (PcdArmArchTimerIntrNum), TimerInterruptHandler); > ASSERT_EFI_ERROR (Status); > > I wanted to understand how the Interrupt registration changes for PPI or > SPI interrupt sources. > As usually the Virtual, Hypervisor, Physical and Physical Non-Secure > interrupts are PPI does the PPI number need to be defined as the PCD > values in the same way as linux. The Linux gicv3 documentation says > (Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic-v3.txt): > > SPI interrupts are in the range [0-987]. PPI interrupts are in the range > [0-15]. > > 2. Also one related question is whether on Juno Rev1, you are able to get > the BootDelay to work via timer based events? If yes, can you please > share if you achieve this by using the ARMv8 generic timer or the SP804 > timer. > Regards, Bhupesh

10 years, 3 months

2
3
0 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

boot-architecture