- boot-architecture - lists.linaro.org

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

by Rob Herring

Deferred probe will currently wait forever on dependent devices to probe, but sometimes a driver will never exist. It's also not always critical for a driver to exist. Platforms can rely on default configuration from the bootloader or reset defaults for things such as pinctrl and power domains. This is often the case with initial platform support until various drivers get enabled. There's at least 2 scenarios where deferred probe can render a platform broken. Both involve using a DT which has more devices and dependencies than the kernel supports. The 1st case is a driver may be disabled in the kernel config. The 2nd case is the kernel version may simply not have the dependent driver. This can happen if using a newer DT (provided by firmware perhaps) with a stable kernel version. Unfortunately, this change breaks with modules as we have no way of knowing when modules are done loading. One possibility is to make this opt in or out based on compatible strings rather than at a subsystem level. Ideally this information could be extracted automatically somehow. OTOH, maybe the lists are pretty small. There's only a handful of subsystems that can be optional, and then only so many drivers in those that can be modules (at least for pinctrl, many drivers are built-in only). Cc: Alexander Graf <agraf(a)suse.de> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh(a)kernel.org> --- This patch 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. Rob [1] https://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/boot-architecture/2018-April/000466.html drivers/base/dd.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++ drivers/pinctrl/devicetree.c | 2 +- include/linux/device.h | 2 ++ 3 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/base/dd.c b/drivers/base/dd.c index c9f54089429b..5848808b9d7a 100644 --- a/drivers/base/dd.c +++ b/drivers/base/dd.c @@ -226,6 +226,15 @@ void device_unblock_probing(void) driver_deferred_probe_trigger(); } + +int driver_deferred_probe_optional(void) +{ + if (initcalls_done) + return -ENODEV; + + return -EPROBE_DEFER; +} + /** * deferred_probe_initcall() - Enable probing of deferred devices * @@ -240,6 +249,13 @@ static int deferred_probe_initcall(void) /* Sort as many dependencies as possible before exiting initcalls */ flush_work(&deferred_probe_work); initcalls_done = true; + + /* + * Trigger deferred probe again, this time we won't defer anything + * that is optional + */ + driver_deferred_probe_trigger(); + flush_work(&deferred_probe_work); return 0; } late_initcall(deferred_probe_initcall); diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/devicetree.c b/drivers/pinctrl/devicetree.c index b601039d6c69..096e52a5c506 100644 --- a/drivers/pinctrl/devicetree.c +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/devicetree.c @@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ static int dt_to_map_one_config(struct pinctrl *p, np_config); of_node_put(np_pctldev); /* OK let's just assume this will appear later then */ - return -EPROBE_DEFER; + return driver_deferred_probe_optional(); } /* If we're creating a hog we can use the passed pctldev */ if (pctldev && (np_pctldev == p->dev->of_node)) diff --git a/include/linux/device.h b/include/linux/device.h index 0059b99e1f25..8de920442bc1 100644 --- a/include/linux/device.h +++ b/include/linux/device.h @@ -332,6 +332,8 @@ struct device *driver_find_device(struct device_driver *drv, struct device *start, void *data, int (*match)(struct device *dev, void *data)); +int driver_deferred_probe_optional(void); + /** * struct subsys_interface - interfaces to device functions * @name: name of the device function -- 2.17.0

7 years, 11 months

7
14
0 0

EBBR issues moved to github

by Grant Likely

I've started tracking EBBR issues in github, so I will no longer track them in the weekly meeting notes document. Please go take a look. Feel free to add issues for things that need to be done, or comment on the items that are there. Better yet, write patches to fix the existing issues! ;-) https://github.com/ARM-software/ebbr/issues 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, 11 months

1
0
0 0

[PATCH 1/2] Elaborate on DCO process and add full text of CC-BY-SA 4.0

by Grant Likely

Replace the LICENSE file with the full text of CC-BY-SA 4.0 License into the LICENSE file, and move the DCO description into the README. The LICENSE file is a verbatim copy of: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode.txt Signed-off-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely(a)arm.com> --- LICENSE | 428 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ LICENSE.rst | 50 ------- README.rst | 75 ++++++++--- 3 files changed, 488 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-) create mode 100644 LICENSE delete mode 100644 LICENSE.rst diff --git a/LICENSE b/LICENSE new file mode 100644 index 0000000..fe8dbc5 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE @@ -0,0 +1,428 @@ +Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International + +======================================================================= + +Creative Commons Corporation ("Creative Commons") is not a law firm and +does not provide legal services or legal advice. Distribution of +Creative Commons public licenses does not create a lawyer-client or +other relationship. Creative Commons makes its licenses and related +information available on an "as-is" basis. Creative Commons gives no +warranties regarding its licenses, any material licensed under their +terms and conditions, or any related information. Creative Commons +disclaims all liability for damages resulting from their use to the +fullest extent possible. + +Using Creative Commons Public Licenses + +Creative Commons public licenses provide a standard set of terms and +conditions that creators and other rights holders may use to share +original works of authorship and other material subject to copyright +and certain other rights specified in the public license below. The +following considerations are for informational purposes only, are not +exhaustive, and do not form part of our licenses. + + Considerations for licensors: Our public licenses are + intended for use by those authorized to give the public + permission to use material in ways otherwise restricted by + copyright and certain other rights. Our licenses are + irrevocable. Licensors should read and understand the terms + and conditions of the license they choose before applying it. + Licensors should also secure all rights necessary before + applying our licenses so that the public can reuse the + material as expected. Licensors should clearly mark any + material not subject to the license. This includes other CC- + licensed material, or material used under an exception or + limitation to copyright. More considerations for licensors: + wiki.creativecommons.org/Considerations_for_licensors + + Considerations for the public: By using one of our public + licenses, a licensor grants the public permission to use the + licensed material under specified terms and conditions. If + the licensor's permission is not necessary for any reason--for + example, because of any applicable exception or limitation to + copyright--then that use is not regulated by the license. Our + licenses grant only permissions under copyright and certain + other rights that a licensor has authority to grant. Use of + the licensed material may still be restricted for other + reasons, including because others have copyright or other + rights in the material. A licensor may make special requests, + such as asking that all changes be marked or described. + Although not required by our licenses, you are encouraged to + respect those requests where reasonable. More considerations + for the public: + wiki.creativecommons.org/Considerations_for_licensees + +======================================================================= + +Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public +License + +By exercising the Licensed Rights (defined below), You accept and agree +to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Creative Commons +Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License ("Public +License"). To the extent this Public License may be interpreted as a +contract, You are granted the Licensed Rights in consideration of Your +acceptance of these terms and conditions, and the Licensor grants You +such rights in consideration of benefits the Licensor receives from +making the Licensed Material available under these terms and +conditions. + + +Section 1 -- Definitions. + + a. Adapted Material means material subject to Copyright and Similar + Rights that is derived from or based upon the Licensed Material + and in which the Licensed Material is translated, altered, + arranged, transformed, or otherwise modified in a manner requiring + permission under the Copyright and Similar Rights held by the + Licensor. For purposes of this Public License, where the Licensed + Material is a musical work, performance, or sound recording, + Adapted Material is always produced where the Licensed Material is + synched in timed relation with a moving image. + + b. Adapter's License means the license You apply to Your Copyright + and Similar Rights in Your contributions to Adapted Material in + accordance with the terms and conditions of this Public License. + + c. BY-SA Compatible License means a license listed at + creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses, approved by Creative + Commons as essentially the equivalent of this Public License. + + d. Copyright and Similar Rights means copyright and/or similar rights + closely related to copyright including, without limitation, + performance, broadcast, sound recording, and Sui Generis Database + Rights, without regard to how the rights are labeled or + categorized. For purposes of this Public License, the rights + specified in Section 2(b)(1)-(2) are not Copyright and Similar + Rights. + + e. Effective Technological Measures means those measures that, in the + absence of proper authority, may not be circumvented under laws + fulfilling obligations under Article 11 of the WIPO Copyright + Treaty adopted on December 20, 1996, and/or similar international + agreements. + + f. Exceptions and Limitations means fair use, fair dealing, and/or + any other exception or limitation to Copyright and Similar Rights + that applies to Your use of the Licensed Material. + + g. License Elements means the license attributes listed in the name + of a Creative Commons Public License. The License Elements of this + Public License are Attribution and ShareAlike. + + h. Licensed Material means the artistic or literary work, database, + or other material to which the Licensor applied this Public + License. + + i. Licensed Rights means the rights granted to You subject to the + terms and conditions of this Public License, which are limited to + all Copyright and Similar Rights that apply to Your use of the + Licensed Material and that the Licensor has authority to license. + + j. Licensor means the individual(s) or entity(ies) granting rights + under this Public License. + + k. Share means to provide material to the public by any means or + process that requires permission under the Licensed Rights, such + as reproduction, public display, public performance, distribution, + dissemination, communication, or importation, and to make material + available to the public including in ways that members of the + public may access the material from a place and at a time + individually chosen by them. + + l. Sui Generis Database Rights means rights other than copyright + resulting from Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of + the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, + as amended and/or succeeded, as well as other essentially + equivalent rights anywhere in the world. + + m. You means the individual or entity exercising the Licensed Rights + under this Public License. Your has a corresponding meaning. + + +Section 2 -- Scope. + + a. License grant. + + 1. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, + the Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, + non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to + exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed Material to: + + a. reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or + in part; and + + b. produce, reproduce, and Share Adapted Material. + + 2. Exceptions and Limitations. For the avoidance of doubt, where + Exceptions and Limitations apply to Your use, this Public + License does not apply, and You do not need to comply with + its terms and conditions. + + 3. Term. The term of this Public License is specified in Section + 6(a). + + 4. Media and formats; technical modifications allowed. The + Licensor authorizes You to exercise the Licensed Rights in + all media and formats whether now known or hereafter created, + and to make technical modifications necessary to do so. The + Licensor waives and/or agrees not to assert any right or + authority to forbid You from making technical modifications + necessary to exercise the Licensed Rights, including + technical modifications necessary to circumvent Effective + Technological Measures. For purposes of this Public License, + simply making modifications authorized by this Section 2(a) + (4) never produces Adapted Material. + + 5. Downstream recipients. + + a. Offer from the Licensor -- Licensed Material. Every + recipient of the Licensed Material automatically + receives an offer from the Licensor to exercise the + Licensed Rights under the terms and conditions of this + Public License. + + b. Additional offer from the Licensor -- Adapted Material. + Every recipient of Adapted Material from You + automatically receives an offer from the Licensor to + exercise the Licensed Rights in the Adapted Material + under the conditions of the Adapter's License You apply. + + c. No downstream restrictions. You may not offer or impose + any additional or different terms or conditions on, or + apply any Effective Technological Measures to, the + Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the + Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed + Material. + + 6. No endorsement. Nothing in this Public License constitutes or + may be construed as permission to assert or imply that You + are, or that Your use of the Licensed Material is, connected + with, or sponsored, endorsed, or granted official status by, + the Licensor or others designated to receive attribution as + provided in Section 3(a)(1)(A)(i). + + b. Other rights. + + 1. Moral rights, such as the right of integrity, are not + licensed under this Public License, nor are publicity, + privacy, and/or other similar personality rights; however, to + the extent possible, the Licensor waives and/or agrees not to + assert any such rights held by the Licensor to the limited + extent necessary to allow You to exercise the Licensed + Rights, but not otherwise. + + 2. Patent and trademark rights are not licensed under this + Public License. + + 3. To the extent possible, the Licensor waives any right to + collect royalties from You for the exercise of the Licensed + Rights, whether directly or through a collecting society + under any voluntary or waivable statutory or compulsory + licensing scheme. In all other cases the Licensor expressly + reserves any right to collect such royalties. + + +Section 3 -- License Conditions. + +Your exercise of the Licensed Rights is expressly made subject to the +following conditions. + + a. Attribution. + + 1. If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified + form), You must: + + a. retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor + with the Licensed Material: + + i. identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed + Material and any others designated to receive + attribution, in any reasonable manner requested by + the Licensor (including by pseudonym if + designated); + + ii. a copyright notice; + + iii. a notice that refers to this Public License; + + iv. a notice that refers to the disclaimer of + warranties; + + v. a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material to the + extent reasonably practicable; + + b. indicate if You modified the Licensed Material and + retain an indication of any previous modifications; and + + c. indicate the Licensed Material is licensed under this + Public License, and include the text of, or the URI or + hyperlink to, this Public License. + + 2. You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1) in any + reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in + which You Share the Licensed Material. For example, it may be + reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or + hyperlink to a resource that includes the required + information. + + 3. If requested by the Licensor, You must remove any of the + information required by Section 3(a)(1)(A) to the extent + reasonably practicable. + + b. ShareAlike. + + In addition to the conditions in Section 3(a), if You Share + Adapted Material You produce, the following conditions also apply. + + 1. The Adapter's License You apply must be a Creative Commons + license with the same License Elements, this version or + later, or a BY-SA Compatible License. + + 2. You must include the text of, or the URI or hyperlink to, the + Adapter's License You apply. You may satisfy this condition + in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and + context in which You Share Adapted Material. + + 3. You may not offer or impose any additional or different terms + or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological + Measures to, Adapted Material that restrict exercise of the + rights granted under the Adapter's License You apply. + + +Section 4 -- Sui Generis Database Rights. + +Where the Licensed Rights include Sui Generis Database Rights that +apply to Your use of the Licensed Material: + + a. for the avoidance of doubt, Section 2(a)(1) grants You the right + to extract, reuse, reproduce, and Share all or a substantial + portion of the contents of the database; + + b. if You include all or a substantial portion of the database + contents in a database in which You have Sui Generis Database + Rights, then the database in which You have Sui Generis Database + Rights (but not its individual contents) is Adapted Material, + + including for purposes of Section 3(b); and + c. You must comply with the conditions in Section 3(a) if You Share + all or a substantial portion of the contents of the database. + +For the avoidance of doubt, this Section 4 supplements and does not +replace Your obligations under this Public License where the Licensed +Rights include other Copyright and Similar Rights. + + +Section 5 -- Disclaimer of Warranties and Limitation of Liability. + + a. UNLESS OTHERWISE SEPARATELY UNDERTAKEN BY THE LICENSOR, TO THE + EXTENT POSSIBLE, THE LICENSOR OFFERS THE LICENSED MATERIAL AS-IS + AND AS-AVAILABLE, AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF + ANY KIND CONCERNING THE LICENSED MATERIAL, WHETHER EXPRESS, + IMPLIED, STATUTORY, OR OTHER. THIS INCLUDES, WITHOUT LIMITATION, + WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR + PURPOSE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, ABSENCE OF LATENT OR OTHER DEFECTS, + ACCURACY, OR THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF ERRORS, WHETHER OR NOT + KNOWN OR DISCOVERABLE. WHERE DISCLAIMERS OF WARRANTIES ARE NOT + ALLOWED IN FULL OR IN PART, THIS DISCLAIMER MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. + + b. TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, IN NO EVENT WILL THE LICENSOR BE LIABLE + TO YOU ON ANY LEGAL THEORY (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, + NEGLIGENCE) OR OTHERWISE FOR ANY DIRECT, SPECIAL, INDIRECT, + INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE, EXEMPLARY, OR OTHER LOSSES, + COSTS, EXPENSES, OR DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THIS PUBLIC LICENSE OR + USE OF THE LICENSED MATERIAL, EVEN IF THE LICENSOR HAS BEEN + ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH LOSSES, COSTS, EXPENSES, OR + DAMAGES. WHERE A LIMITATION OF LIABILITY IS NOT ALLOWED IN FULL OR + IN PART, THIS LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. + + c. The disclaimer of warranties and limitation of liability provided + above shall be interpreted in a manner that, to the extent + possible, most closely approximates an absolute disclaimer and + waiver of all liability. + + +Section 6 -- Term and Termination. + + a. This Public License applies for the term of the Copyright and + Similar Rights licensed here. However, if You fail to comply with + this Public License, then Your rights under this Public License + terminate automatically. + + b. Where Your right to use the Licensed Material has terminated under + Section 6(a), it reinstates: + + 1. automatically as of the date the violation is cured, provided + it is cured within 30 days of Your discovery of the + violation; or + + 2. upon express reinstatement by the Licensor. + + For the avoidance of doubt, this Section 6(b) does not affect any + right the Licensor may have to seek remedies for Your violations + of this Public License. + + c. For the avoidance of doubt, the Licensor may also offer the + Licensed Material under separate terms or conditions or stop + distributing the Licensed Material at any time; however, doing so + will not terminate this Public License. + + d. Sections 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8 survive termination of this Public + License. + + +Section 7 -- Other Terms and Conditions. + + a. The Licensor shall not be bound by any additional or different + terms or conditions communicated by You unless expressly agreed. + + b. Any arrangements, understandings, or agreements regarding the + Licensed Material not stated herein are separate from and + independent of the terms and conditions of this Public License. + + +Section 8 -- Interpretation. + + a. For the avoidance of doubt, this Public License does not, and + shall not be interpreted to, reduce, limit, restrict, or impose + conditions on any use of the Licensed Material that could lawfully + be made without permission under this Public License. + + b. To the extent possible, if any provision of this Public License is + deemed unenforceable, it shall be automatically reformed to the + minimum extent necessary to make it enforceable. If the provision + cannot be reformed, it shall be severed from this Public License + without affecting the enforceability of the remaining terms and + conditions. + + c. No term or condition of this Public License will be waived and no + failure to comply consented to unless expressly agreed to by the + Licensor. + + d. Nothing in this Public License constitutes or may be interpreted + as a limitation upon, or waiver of, any privileges and immunities + that apply to the Licensor or You, including from the legal + processes of any jurisdiction or authority. + + +======================================================================= + +Creative Commons is not a party to its public +licenses. Notwithstanding, Creative Commons may elect to apply one of +its public licenses to material it publishes and in those instances +will be considered the “Licensor.” The text of the Creative Commons +public licenses is dedicated to the public domain under the CC0 Public +Domain Dedication. Except for the limited purpose of indicating that +material is shared under a Creative Commons public license or as +otherwise permitted by the Creative Commons policies published at +creativecommons.org/policies, Creative Commons does not authorize the +use of the trademark "Creative Commons" or any other trademark or logo +of Creative Commons without its prior written consent including, +without limitation, in connection with any unauthorized modifications +to any of its public licenses or any other arrangements, +understandings, or agreements concerning use of licensed material. For +the avoidance of doubt, this paragraph does not form part of the +public licenses. + +Creative Commons may be contacted at creativecommons.org. + diff --git a/LICENSE.rst b/LICENSE.rst deleted file mode 100644 index 78313a4..0000000 --- a/LICENSE.rst +++ /dev/null @@ -1,50 +0,0 @@ -Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 -=========================================== -:: - - This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 - International License. To view a copy of this license, visit - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ or send a letter to - Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA. - -Developer Certificate of Origin -=============================== -:: - - Developer Certificate of Origin - Version 1.1 - - Copyright (C) 2004, 2006 The Linux Foundation and its contributors. - 1 Letterman Drive - Suite D4700 - San Francisco, CA, 94129 - - Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this - license document, but changing it is not allowed. - - - Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1 - - By making a contribution to this project, I certify that: - - (a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I - have the right to submit it under the open source license - indicated in the file; or - - (b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best - of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source - license and I have the right under that license to submit that - work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part - by me, under the same open source license (unless I am - permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated - in the file; or - - (c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other - person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified - it. - - (d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution - are public and that a record of the contribution (including all - personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is - maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with - this project or the open source license(s) involved. diff --git a/README.rst b/README.rst index 84aeb0a..1babcf4 100644 --- a/README.rst +++ b/README.rst @@ -13,11 +13,21 @@ expected in September 2018. You can find the current draft text in this repository, but be aware that everything in the draft text is subject to change before an official v1.0 release is published. -The documentation in this project is provided under the terms of the -Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike License. -Licensing details can be found in the LICENSE.rst_ file. +License +======= -.. _LICENSE.rst: ./LICENSE.rst +This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 +International License. To view a copy of this license, visit +http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ or send a letter to +Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA. + +A copy of the license is included in the LICENSE_ file. + +.. image:: https://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-sa/4.0/88x31.png + :target: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ + :alt: Creative Commons License + +.. _LICENSE: ./LICENSE Contributing ============ @@ -25,29 +35,64 @@ Contributing Master copy of this project is hosted on GitHub: https://github.com/ARM-software/ebbr -Anyone may contribute to EBBR. Contributions must be made with a -Developer Certificate of Origin (DCO_) attestation that the contribution -confirms to the license of the project. The attestation is made by the -developer including a ``Signed-off-by: <email-address>`` tag in the -commit text of the contribution. - -EBBR discussion is on the boot-architecture_ and arm.ebbr-discuss mailing lists. -The 'official' list is arm.ebbr-discuss, but the list archives are not yet public, -so boot-architecture_ is being used to keep everything in the open. +Anyone may contribute to the EBBR project. EBBR discussion uses the +boot-architecture_ and arm.ebbr-discuss mailing lists. +The 'official' list is arm.ebbr-discuss, but the list archives are not +yet public, so boot-architecture_ is being used to keep everything in +the open. * boot-architechture(a)lists.linaro.org * arm.ebbr-discuss(a)arm.com -Past discussions can be found in the _boot-architecture-archive. +Past discussions can be found in the boot-architecture-archive_. + +To help track the origin of contributions, this project uses the same +DCO_ "sign-off" process as used by the Linux kernel. +The sign-off is a simple line at the end of the explanation for the +patch, which certifies that you wrote it or otherwise have the right to +pass it on as an open-source patch. The rules are pretty simple: if you +can certify the below: + +Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1 +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ + +By making a contribution to this project, I certify that: + + (a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I + have the right to submit it under the open source license + indicated in the file; or + + (b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best + of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source + license and I have the right under that license to submit that + work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part + by me, under the same open source license (unless I am + permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated + in the file; or + + (c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other + person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified + it. + + (d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution + are public and that a record of the contribution (including all + personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is + maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with + this project or the open source license(s) involved. + +then you just add a line saying:: + + Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random(a)developer.example.org> IRC Channel: ``#ebbr`` on ofct .. _DCO: https://developercertificate.org/ .. _boot-architecture: https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture -.. _boot-architecture-archive: https://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/boot-architecture/ +.. _boot-architecture-archive: https://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/boot-architecture Writers Guide ============= + All documentation in this repository uses reStructuredText_ markup with Sphinx_ extensions. -- 2.13.0

7 years, 11 months

1
0
0 0

EBBR repo created

by Grant Likely

Hi folks, Internal approval for EBBR has come through and we now have a GitHub repo. It's empty at the moment, but I'll be pushing the current EBBR text there shortly once I've fixed the license text. License will be CC-BY-SA https://github.com/ARM-software/ebbr We can start using this page to track issue. I'll put all the active action items into github issues. 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, 11 months

1
1
0 0

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

by William Mills

[explicitly cc'ing boot-arch to see if this solves the TI auth problems] On 05/04/2018 11:45 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: > On 05/04/2018 04:56 PM, Grant Likely wrote: >> On 04/05/2018 15:46, Grant Likely wrote: >>> On 03/05/2018 09:43, Daniel Thompson wrote: >>>> 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. 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 :) >>>> >>>> I'm OK to allow MBR. >>>> >>>> I'd be inclined to require that protective partitions be used to defend >>>> the first 2MB though. They are more flexible and are a useful hint to >>>> anyone trying to manually partition. >>>> >>>> >>>> In a different mail Tom wrote: >>>>> And I agree with the high level idea of needing to do something to >>>>> protect systems with a magic in-use spot. >>>> >>>> There are a couple of extra details. >>>> >>>> 1. We can't allocate a GUID to discourage an automatic partitioner >>>> from harming a protected partition. We only have the 8-bit >>>> partition type. >>>> Some potential candidates could be 0xA2 (which Altera appear use >>>> for a similar purpose), 0xE7 (wikipedia does not report existing >>>> uses) or 0xF0 (PA-RISC Linux boot loader). >>>> >>>> 2. Boot ROMs that have built-in support for FAT could be hard coded to >>>> require a specific partition type. > >>>> I think we don't need to worry about #2 to much: systems with built-in >>>> MBR/FAT parsing can use hybrid MBR/GPT to communicate to distros >>>> which partitions are protected because (presumably) they allow >>>> flexibility in placing the first sector of the FAT partition. >>> >>> Can we start a list of SoCs that have special requirements on the >>> boot eMMC/SD/USB? It would be useful to see the cross-section of >>> requirements. >>> >>> I've created a wiki page to start capturing data. From their we can >>> decide what scenarios the spec needs to cover. >>> >>> https://github.com/glikely/ebbr-for-discussion/wiki/Boot-Media-Behaviour >> >> One more thought, are there many new SoCs still using hard coded >> offsets instead of an MBR or GPT? It may be that there aren't enough >> left for us to care about for EBBR level 0. In which case EBBR Level 0 >> should support both MBR and GPT (non-hybrid), and then narrow to GPT >> only in a future revision. > > I don't think we'll be able to move away from MBR anytime soon. For a > quick glimpse on what SoCs need to have blobs installed where, take a > look at our image creation script: > > https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/openSUSE:Factory:ARM:Live/JeOS… > > > There you can see that we force to MBR (for various reasons) on: > > * RPi (reads MBR) > * i.MX 5x/6 (SPL at sector 2) > * Exynos 4/5 (SPL is in sector 1, not sure about newer ones) > * AM905 (SPL in sector 1) > * Kirkwood (SPL in sector 1) > * Zynq(MP) (convenient to store boot.bin on FAT partition in MBR) > > I think we should simply dictate that EBBR compliant OSs do not start > any partitions before a sane boundary (1MB? 2MB?). IIRC most > partitioning tools these days won't start partitions before 1MB anyway, > so if we declare 1MB a safe bound we essentially have no work to do. > > I did skim (not study) the script. Looks like a good resource of current board info. I see you are using raw mode for many boards. I am missing something. If there is only MBR and no GPT then there is no GUID type for EFI Partition. So how does the firmware find the "EFI Partition" and the default /efi/boot/boot*.efi file? Does it just use the partition with boot flag?

7 years, 11 months

5
14
0 0

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

by Grant Likely

On 04/05/2018 16:00, Tom Rini wrote: > On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 03:46:52PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote: [...] >> Can we start a list of SoCs that have special requirements on the boot >> eMMC/SD/USB? It would be useful to see the cross-section of requirements. >> >> I've created a wiki page to start capturing data. From their we can >> decide what scenarios the spec needs to cover. >> >> https://github.com/glikely/ebbr-for-discussion/wiki/Boot-Media-Behaviour > > I'm not sure if there's a button somewhere to allow more widely used > editing of the wiki part of github. Maybe rename it to something like > notes/ in the ebbr-for-discussion repo itself so the usual PR workflow > is available? Thanks! Done: https://github.com/glikely/ebbr-for-discussion/blob/master/soc-boot-behavio… g.

7 years, 11 months

1
1
0 0

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, 11 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, 11 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, 11 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, 11 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, 11 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, 11 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, 12 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, 12 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, 12 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, 12 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.

8 years

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.

8 years

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.

8 years

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.

8 years

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.

8 years

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.

8 years

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

8 years

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.

8 years

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.

8 years

1
0
0 0

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

boot-architecture