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@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@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@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@arm.com <mailto:Charles.Garcia-Tobin@arm.com>>: Nice! On 29/03/2018, 06:14, "arm.ebbr-discuss-bounces@arm.com <mailto:arm.ebbr-discuss-bounces@arm.com> on behalf of Dong Wei" <arm.ebbr-discuss-bounces@arm.com <mailto:arm.ebbr-discuss-bounces@arm.com> on behalf of Dong.Wei@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@arm.com <mailto:arm.ebbr-discuss@arm.com>> Cc: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de <mailto:agraf@suse.de>>; wmills@ti.com <mailto:wmills@ti.com>; Dong Wei <Dong.Wei@arm.com <mailto:Dong.Wei@arm.com>>; Yang Zhang <yang.zhang@96boards.org <mailto:yang.zhang@96boards.org>>; Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@redhat.com <mailto:pbrobinson@redhat.com>>; Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org <mailto:ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>>; rob.herring@linaro.org <mailto:rob.herring@linaro.org>; Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com <mailto:trini@konsulko.com>>; boot-architecture@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@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@arm.com <mailto:Arm.ebbr-discuss@arm.com> _______________________________________________ Arm.ebbr-discuss mailing list Arm.ebbr-discuss@arm.com <mailto:Arm.ebbr-discuss@arm.com> _______________________________________________ Arm.ebbr-discuss mailing list Arm.ebbr-discuss@arm.com <mailto:Arm.ebbr-discuss@arm.com> _______________________________________________ Arm.ebbr-discuss mailing list Arm.ebbr-discuss@arm.com <mailto:Arm.ebbr-discuss@arm.com>
Arm.ebbr-discuss mailing list Arm.ebbr-discuss@arm.com
Arm.ebbr-discuss mailing list Arm.ebbr-discuss@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.
On 04/04/2018 15:23, Grant Likely wrote:
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.
Seems to be working now. My reply at least shows up in the archive now:
https://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/boot-architecture/2018-April/000416.html
g.
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@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@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@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 tohave in the spec.
Cheers, g. Alex Am 29.03.2018 um 09:34 schrieb Charles Garcia-Tobin <Charles.Garcia-Tobin@arm.com <mailto:Charles.Garcia-Tobin@arm.com>>: Nice! On 29/03/2018, 06:14, "arm.ebbr-discuss-bounces@arm.com <mailto:arm.ebbr-discuss-bounces@arm.com> on behalf of Dong Wei" <arm.ebbr-discuss-bounces@arm.com <mailto:arm.ebbr-discuss-bounces@arm.com> on behalf of Dong.Wei@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 tosee 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@arm.com <mailto:arm.ebbr-discuss@arm.com>> Cc: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de <mailto:agraf@suse.de>>; wmills@ti.com <mailto:wmills@ti.com>; Dong Wei <Dong.Wei@arm.com <mailto:Dong.Wei@arm.com>>; Yang Zhang <yang.zhang@96boards.org <mailto:yang.zhang@96boards.org>>; Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@redhat.com <mailto:pbrobinson@redhat.com>>; Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org <mailto:ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>>; rob.herring@linaro.org <mailto:rob.herring@linaro.org>; Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com <mailto:trini@konsulko.com>>; boot-architecture@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 hasbeen 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 alsocc'ing the boot-architecture@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 embeddedboards. - 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 withempty 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 thatcan 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 withreStructuredText 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@arm.com <mailto:Arm.ebbr-discuss@arm.com> _______________________________________________ Arm.ebbr-discuss mailing list Arm.ebbr-discuss@arm.com <mailto:Arm.ebbr-discuss@arm.com> _______________________________________________ Arm.ebbr-discuss mailing list Arm.ebbr-discuss@arm.com <mailto:Arm.ebbr-discuss@arm.com> _______________________________________________ Arm.ebbr-discuss mailing list Arm.ebbr-discuss@arm.com <mailto:Arm.ebbr-discuss@arm.com>
Arm.ebbr-discuss mailing list Arm.ebbr-discuss@arm.com
Arm.ebbr-discuss mailing list Arm.ebbr-discuss@arm.com
Arm.ebbr-discuss mailing list Arm.ebbr-discuss@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.
boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org
-
Grant Likely