boot-architecture

boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org

8 participants
668 discussions

Fwd: eMMC4.5 Boot partition support -expectations

by Deepak Saxena

Hi, I'm wondering if folks in the boot architecture team have any input on this? ~Deepak ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Venkatraman S <venkat(a)linaro.org> Date: 25 November 2011 04:19 Subject: eMMC4.5 Boot partition support -expectations To: Deepak Saxena <dsaxena(a)linaro.org>, Saugata Das <saugata.das(a)linaro.org> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd.bergmann(a)linaro.org>, Yejin.moon(a)samsung.com Hi Deepak, all, According to this cycle's eMMC4.5 requirements in [1], there is no need to provide any specific support in the boot loader for Boot partition, right ? As of 3.1, the Kernel recognizes the boot partitions and exposes them as read-only. Any user space tool can update the data in the boot partition by overriding the sysfs entry, and writing the appropriate data. Let me know if there are any specific expectations on this. Thanks and regards, Venkat. [1] https://linaro-public.papyrs.com/public/4086/KWG2011-EMMC-4.5-SUPPORT/

13 years, 12 months

Re: [ACTIVITY] Meeting minutes from 20 October 2011

by Ilias Biris

Hi folks After discussing with Grant, I have sent new invitations out - the new meeting is set to happen once a month starting Thursday 08 December. The timeslot remains the same. I hope this arrangement is good for you. Please let me know if you have any issue with the time. Best regards, Ilias Biris - ilias.biris(a)linaro.org Project Manager, Linaro M: +358504839608, IRC: ibiris, Skype: ilias_biris Linaro.org│ Open source software for ARM SoCs On 17 Nov 2011 11:20, "Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD" < plagnioj(a)jcrosoft.com> wrote:

13 years, 12 months

[MailServer Notification]Security Notification

by Administrator＠allwinnertech.com

WORM_MYDOOM.GEN has been detected,and Clean fail, quarantine entire message has been taken on 2011-12-5 14:11:47.

13 years, 12 months

Returned mail: see transcript for details

by joba320＠topflight-china.com

The original message was included as attachment

13 years, 12 months

[ACTIVITY] Meeting minutes from 20 October 2011

by Ilias Biris

https://wiki.linaro.org/OfficeofCTO/BootArchitecture/2011-10-20 Please take note on the following: - there could be no call this week. Grant will confirm (as many are on ELCE this week) - Jean Christophe was to send to the list a proposal on what could be the reference platforms for the work related to server - in the meeting Jean Christophe mentioned ST and Marvel, but it would be best to have specific reference to any boards - Other actions are in the link: https://wiki.linaro.org/OfficeofCTO/BootArchitecture/2011-10-20#action-poin… Best regards -- Ilias Biris ilias.biris(a)linaro.org Project Manager, Linaro M: +358504839608, IRC: ibiris Skype: ilias_biris Linaro.org│ Open source software for ARM SoCs

14 years

Minutes from ELC-E/LinuxCon Europe meeting

by Loïc Minier

Hey These are the minutes for the meeting we had today at ELC-Europe/LinuxCon Europe. Please fix/amend as you see fit! Cheers, == Attendees == * Sascha Hauer * Olof Johansson * Grant Likely * Jean-Christophe * Deepak Saxena * Nicolas Pitre * Loïc Minier * Michael Frysinger == Random topics/agenda == * Barebox * Support in Linaro tools * Runtime configuration via DeviceTree * Boot menu * U-Boot * zload on ARM * runtime configuration via DeviceTree * UEFI * Tianocore * Support in Linaro tools * PXE implementation * Intel builds * pxelinux compatibility app * U-Boot (Barebox?) UEFI compatibility app * grub-efi porting * ACPI * Intel opensource implementation * ARM support in linux * Compiler * Specs * entry point protocol (Jean-Christophe) * kernel image format (Jean-Christophe) * secure boot (Grant) == Minutes == * Recent decision to focus on server rather than doing boot architecture at large * Constraints of supporting older OS on newer hardware * Calxeda focusing entirely on server, with A9 * Apple and Windows 8 expecting the same boot interface on all supported hardware * Apple not interesting case because vertically integrated * Short-term + long-term approach * Short-term: U-Boot * Long-term: Tianocore * Short-term pain points * uImage solved: use -1 as load address to use the default address * userspace should have nothing board specific, but should pass: * kernel * initrd * dtb -- actually that's board specific :-/ * ship all device trees * install one as the firmware during install * if we need to update the dt, install the one corresponding to the currently used device-tree compatible property (from /proc) * Replacing the DTB in the firmware might break the signature * Eventually want NOT to load DTB from userspace but only rely on the firmware one; DTB updates are provided via firmware upgrades * Can't demonstrate this easily with boards without flash in Linaro, but that's ok * u-boot would gain an eliloboot command which reads an elilo config file and runs it * Could have a GRUB backend for U-Boot before we get the EFI one * Should we target a single config file format for all bootloaders? * Too hard and so many concrete short-terms problems to solve * Can boot with GPT/EFI conventions on things which look like disks (e.g. SD/MMC) * Doesn't support MTD * GRUB ARM port * Direct port or on top of U-Boot * Need block access and console access * Probably larger work to port GRUB to U-Boot/Barebox than parsing grub.cfg from U-Boot * But would miss LVM/RAID/filesystems from grub * Why isn't GRUB logic in a library? * Wouldn't help anyway as U-Boot is GPLv2 only and GRUB is v3+ * U-Boot ABI is stable, Barebox has a POSIX ABI * Plan: * Add grubcfg command to parse grub.cfg * Port GRUB to Barebox or U-Boot * Move to grub-efi * ACPI * Is it going to open up? * How does Tianocore support ACPI today? What would it take to support on ARM * Enabling as many ACPI related pieces on ARM: ACPI BIOS, compiler, linux implementation -- Loïc Minier

14 years, 1 month

Boot architecture meeting at ELC-E

by Grant Likely

Hi all, For those of you attending ELC-E, I've got the "Quadrant" room booked from 1:30-5:00pm on Thursday Oct 27, 2011 for a face to face boot architecture meeting. g.

14 years, 1 month

[ACTIVITY] Meeting minutes from 20 October 2011

by Gerald BAEZA

Hello Two questions to rebound on last meeting minutes and "Working with ACPI and UEFI on ARM" message from Grant: - Since both ACPI and UEFI topics are joined in those recent discussions, does that mean that you don't want to consider one of them (UEFI) without the other one (ACPI) now ? There was some begin of discussion earlier this year and recent activities on UEFI so I am wondering if this will go on as this or be necessarily combined with ACPI. - About UEFI implementation: Tianocore (http://sourceforge.net/projects/tianocore/) seems to be the de facto open source UEFI implementation, as far as I understand. This one is delivered under BSD license (2-clause version, right ?) that would make many OEM happy, compare to the GPL license (U-Boot / Barebox) that they usually don't like for their bootloader. Can you confirm this and/or make it clear in the list started by Grant above ? Best regards, Gérald

14 years, 1 month

[ACTIVITY] Meeting minutes from 13Oct2011

by Ilias Biris

Hi folks https://wiki.linaro.org/OfficeofCTO/BootArchitecture/2011-10-13 has the meeting minutes from yesterday's discussion. I have summarised below the highlights and Actions recorded in the etherpad. ----- = Highlights = We discussed the short term pain points, which should be possible to address via some engineering work - priorities were discussed here is where the discussion was left at the end of the meeting RANKING - Rob's top two: 1) zImage support in u-boot. 2) How does the OS change which kernel gets booted. - Olivier: 1) Get grub working with u-boot - get booting from a GPT partition 2) zImage update process 3) GPT support - Jean-Christophe: 1) Investigate and begin using FIT image format 2) multiplatform kernel images 3) signed images - kernel, initrd, dtb - Grant: 1) grub or grub config file on u-boot 2) Start using GPT support ----- = Actions from the meeting = - [CARRIEDOVER] Grant to followup the status of Linaro UEFI membership - INPROGRESS - [CARRIEDOVER] Grant: Interact with Microsoft on ARM boot interface - there is some discussion more to say say by around mid October - [CARRIEDOVER] Grant to draft a position on secure boot, from the Linaro perspective, which can be reviewed by Linaro TSC: TODO - [CARRIEDOVER] Grant: Draft DTB recommended practices and getting the recommended practices document out and merged into a public tree by Linaro Connect (actually means the week before - as there are other events before the Connect) INPROGRESS, - [CARRIEDOVER] Grant: Select date & time for the next f2f meeting (Next F2F in ELCE in Prague (OCT 27) ?) - 1/2 day in the afternoon. TODO: send out public announcement. + Option 1: half-day meeting during ELCE, some folks won't make it - this is the plan to go for Final confirmation - [CARRIEDOVER] Will: Define SMP boot requirements - spin tables? Target Linaro Connect. No updates. - [CARRIEDOVER] Jean-Christophe to send a RFC to the list regarding the kernel image format and entry protocol: INPROGRESS - target this weekend. + Related to these previous APs: o [CARRIEDOVER] Jean Christophe: Investigate entry point protocol - related to multi-image support. Proposal needed. o [CARRIEDOVER] Jean-Christophe: Investigate kernel image format - Target Linaro Connect. The proposal here is similar to the one handling the previous action point (entry point protocol). - [CARRIEDOVER] Jean-Christophe to send some more details the list regarding the question : is it possible to put the initrd in the DT directly (similar to putting some firmware in the DT)? Proposal (JC) is to have 2 device trees, one very minimal with the boot arguments and another with the HW description. Issue: it is a requirement to be able to sign images passed in to the kernel; including the device tree. That makes it forbidden to modify the boot loader. - must support static DT. - TODO: sent proposal for how to sign device tree images. - [ACTION] Jean-Christophe to put an example of the boot sequence to the mailing list - Under review - waiting for approval to release. - [ACTION] Grant to post request for feedback for ACPI and UEFI - wants to have this checked from ACPI pov Best regards, -- Ilias Biris ilias.biris(a)linaro.org Project Manager, Linaro M: +358504839608, IRC: ibiris Skype: ilias_biris Linaro.org│ Open source software for ARM SoCs

14 years, 1 month

Working with ACPI and UEFI on ARM

by Grant Likely

Hi everyone, We Linux developers seem to have a bit of a love-hate relationship with ACPI. On the plus side it provides the "standard platform" that we rely on to support the huge amount of hardware in the x86 ecosystem It is also the source of much pain due to firmware and DSDT tables that are either buggy or perform poorly. In the embedded space we've avoided ACPI entirely by standardizing on the Flattened Device Tree for hardware discovery. However there are some market segments and use cases where FDT doesn't solve the problems faced by OEMs, particularly when the hardware needs to support existing, unmodified OS images. Some OEMs are looking to implement ACPI on ARM since it is a solution they are already familiar with. It's becoming clear to me that in the near future, independent of whether or not we as the Linux community like it, we are going to start seeing ARM systems that are based on UEFI and ACPI. But, to quote h2g2, "Don't Panic." While there are many reasons as to why ACPI has been the source of pain, at least one of those factors is under our control. Historically, we as the Linux community have not been very good at participating or providing leadership as to what the future of the commodity hardware industry should look like, and the result is decisions that don't reflect our best interest, sheerly by omission. (There is an argument that standards setting hasn't been inclusive either, but I have reason to hope that is neither permanent nor insurmountable). So, given that we know that ARM ACPI machines will exist, and given that we still want to support Linux on these machines, I think it is absolutely appropriate to start getting involved with both the ACPI and UEFI standardization processes. I (on behalf of Linaro) will soon be joining the UEFI ARM Binding Sub Team (ABST), and we already have representatives from Canonical and Red Hat involved there. I'm also investigating the possibility of getting involved when the post-ACPI 5 process begins, probably sometime early next year. In the mean time, I want to start getting prepared by collecting feedback about the state of ACPI and UEFI now, and what changes we need to have for ACPI and UEFI to meet our needs in the Linux ecosystem. Reply to this email with your comments, and I'll start collating a list that I can discuss with the ACPI and UEFI folks. For your reference, the current versions of the ACPI and UEFI specs can be found here[1][2]. The ACPI spec is freely downloadable, but the UEFI spec requires a click-through license to read. [1] http://www.acpi.info/DOWNLOADS/ACPIspec40a.pdf [2] http://www.uefi.org/specs/ I'll kick things off with a few items from my personal list. This list will grow as I collect feedback and input from all of you. 1) Open Process - Currently the ACPI definition process is entirely confidential between the 5 APCI member companies (Microsoft, Intel, Toshiba, HP and Phoenix Technologies), and it remains so until the Final Draft is proposed to "Contributing Adopters" which is very late in the process. The current version of the spec is v4.0a[1]. ACPI 5 is currently under final review and will be released sometime late 2011, early 2012. For us to participate in the ACPI definition, we need to have an open processes so that open source Linux engineers can participate. 2) Improvements to compliance testing - Several Linux developers have been doing good work on BIOS/UEFI/ACPI testing and are able to identify many common bugs in firmware. This is of course valueable to the Linux ecosystem, but since it is discovering firmware bugs, it is most likely of high value to all HW and OS vendors. I would like to see much of the test work that we're currently doing to start filtering back into the tools that are routinely used by HW vendors as part of QA testing. Maybe even pushing for an industry wide suite of compliance tests. 3) Better rules (and testing) on SMM interrupts (or the ARM equivalent). HW vendors are using SMM to work around hardware bugs or perform system management tasks independently and transparently from the operating system. However, poorly implemented firmware will take the processor away from the OS for unbounded periods of time which is a deal breaker for any kind of real-time response in the OS. For ARM systems I would like to see an alternative to compete interruption of the OS when firmware needs to perform system management tasks. Cheers, g.

14 years, 1 month

← Newer
1
...
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

boot-architecture