On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 at 18:11, Daniel Thompson daniel.thompson@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Folks
Sorry if you have already seen this but for those that didn't, last Friday Grant pushed out version 0.6 of EBBR. Details below but the summary is that it is time for feedback.
This v0.6 release of EBBR is a pre-release document. The contents are not final. The purpose of this release is to raise awareness of the EBBR
project, and to solicit feedback on the current draft. Please do read and provide comments on the boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org mailing
list.
We had a training session at HKG18 looking at best practices for automating devices and there are aspects of any boot architecture which will make or break automation. Has any one considered adding to the EBBR based on the objectives of supporting automation of compliant devices?
http://connect.linaro.org/resource/hkg18/hkg18-tr10/ That session was based on this white paper: https://collaborate.linaro.org/display/CTT/Automation+and+hardware+design - but that URL is still restricted to people with a login on collaborate, so I blogged the content here: https://linux.codehelp.co.uk/automation-and-risk.html (It is a long read)
There is a lot of interest in automating testing of all parts of the boot process on a range of boards. Linaro has a lot of experience of automating a range of devices and ARM is building a similar data set using the same tools.
Principle elements would be:
* Reliability - * all identifiers are persistent across updates of the software, reboots etc. * Reliable reporting of errors. * Outputting sensible, unique, strings when performing a CPU reset * Uniqueness - all identifiers are unique and exposed to other parts of the boot architecture, e.g. NIC needs to be visible to bootloaders like Grub. * Scalability - avoid need for customised hardware to automate the device * Deployment - consider how to deploy new software to the device under automation.
EBBR talks about UEFI Reset but doesn't require that a reset is identifiable when it happens in automation - a simple string like the U-Boot support for "Resetting CPU ..." is enough for the automation to detect that the system we tried to deploy has not booted and what is about to happen is that something else may get booted in it's place.
Runtime variable access plays into the need to ensure that the network PHY is exposed to UEFI applications (like grubaarch64.efi)
Partitioning is a frequent problem when AOSP requires multiple partitions and OE testing requires fewer. Devices need to support switching partition tables without needing a full recovery deployment or the deployment of new bits of firmware.
Daniel.
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Grant Likely grant.likely@arm.com Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 at 23:34 Subject: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] EBBR v0.6 Release Announcement To: arm.ebbr-discuss arm.ebbr-discuss@arm.com, boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org, Linux ARM linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, uboot < u-boot@lists.denx.de>, devicetree-spec@vger.kernel.org
I'm pleased to announce the release of version 0.6 of the Embedded Base Boot Requirements (EBBR) specification.
https://github.com/ARM-software/ebbr/releases/tag/v0.6EBBR is a new specification defining a standard boot environment suitable for full feature operating systems running on embedded platforms...
Well, it will when it's finished.
It is well know that firmware for embedded systems is a fragmented area with each platform behaving in subtly incompatible ways. It is also completely different from the firmware interface used on general purpose desktops and servers. For OSes, this makes supporting more than a handful of platforms a nearly impossible affair. EBBR aims to solve this problem by defining a standard boot interface that can easily be implemented using either U-Boot or Tianocore, and is based on the same UEFI specification used on general purpose computers.
By adopting EBBR, platform vendors can reduce the amount of engineering effort required to support their products and make them easier to use. As EBBR is being developed in conjunction with the U-Boot, Tianocore, and Trusted Firmware projects, most of the functionality required is already implemented and ready to be used if one uses an up to date release of U-Boot or Tianocore.
For OS vendors, this makes far easier to support embedded platforms because they don't need to tailor the boot process for each platform. The same boot infrastructure works on both desktop/servers and on EBBR compliant embedded platforms.
And finally, for end users, working with an EBBR compliant platform means they can boot the OS of their choice without needing to learn low level details of the platform firmware.
This v0.6 release of EBBR is a pre-release document. The contents are not final. The purpose of this release is to raise awareness of the EBBR project, and to solicit feedback on the current draft. Please do read and provide comments on the boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org mailing list.
The plan is to release v1.0 before the end of the 2018.
Thanks to the EBBR committee members who contributed to this release:
Andreas Färber (SUSE) Alex Graf (SUSE) Ryan Harkin (Linaro) Rob Herring (Linaro) Udit Kumar (NXP) Leif Lindholm (Linaro) Bill Mills (TI) Peter Robinson (Red Hat) Tom Rini (Konsulko) Daniel Thompson (Linaro) Dong Wei (Arm)
Sincerely, Grant Likely, EBBR committee co-chair
Note on U-Boot implementations
It is expected that EBBR compliant can be achieved by using a recent version of U-Boot with the appropriate configuration options. An implementers guide for U-Boot will be written before EBBR v1.0 is released.
There is also work ongoing to get the UEFI Self Certification Test running on U-Boot. Once working, this will be a tool for vendors to test their platforms for EBBR compliance.
FAQ
Does EBBR define a new interface?
No. EBBR builds on the existing UEFI spec by requiring a specific
subset that can be implemented today using U-Boot, and either Devicetree or ACPI.
Does EBBR require Devicetree? ACPI?
EBBR allows platforms to provide either ACPI or Devicetree. Linux
supports both system description languages equally well, and Devicetree is in common use on embedded platforms. As long as the platform supplies a system description that can boot a mainline operating system.
EBBR does not attempt to define a common base standard forDevicetree platforms because of the wide variety of platforms needed to be supported. The one assumption EBBR does make is that the target operating system already has support for the SoC on the platform.
Is EBBR only for U-Boot and Linux embedded systems?
No. While U-Boot+Linux platforms were certainly the primary audience
when EBBR was first conceived, the spec is very purposefully written to be OS-independent. EBBR requires specific interfaces, but those interface can be implemented by any firmware project.
We would absolutely like to have review, feedback and contributionsfrom non-Linux, non-U-Boot users.
Can I contribute to the EBBR specification?
Yes. The EBBR source document is on GitHub, and we use the
boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org mailing list.
https://github.com/ARM-Software/ebbr