Hi,
I hope everybody had a nice summer.
Could we please resume the EBBR bi-weekly calls?
Let us have our next call on Sep. 26.
Here is the list of proposed topics:
- EFI_CONFORMANCE_PROFILE_TABLE
- EFI_DT_FIXUP_PROTOCOL
- ESRT
- Authenticated capsules
- Bump UEFI specification version to 2.10
This is also captured on the wiki[1] with links. Feel free to add topics.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Grant for his work on EBBR.
Best regards,
Vincent Stehlé
System Architect - Arm
[1]: https://github.com/ARM-software/ebbr/wiki/EBBR-Meetings
Hi Varun,
The intent is for the proposed location (a new repository hosted in tf.org) to be used to review proposed changes to this spec.
The details of the contribution and review process will be debated in the ML once we reach consensus on the hosting location.
Regards,
Jose
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Varun Wadekar <vwadekar(a)nvidia.com>
> Sent: 06 July 2022 12:58
> To: Jose Marinho <Jose.Marinho(a)arm.com>; Simon Glass
> <sjg(a)chromium.org>; Rob Herring <robh(a)kernel.org>
> Cc: tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org; u-boot(a)lists.denx.de; boot-
> architecture(a)lists.linaro.org; François Ozog <francois.ozog(a)linaro.org>;
> Manish Pandey2 <Manish.Pandey2(a)arm.com>; Joanna Farley
> <Joanna.Farley(a)arm.com>; Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas(a)linaro.org>;
> Matteo Carlini <Matteo.Carlini(a)arm.com>; Dan Handley
> <Dan.Handley(a)arm.com>; Harb Abdulhamid
> (harb(a)amperecomputing.com) <harb(a)amperecomputing.com>; Samer El-
> Haj-Mahmoud <Samer.El-Haj-Mahmoud(a)arm.com>; nd <nd(a)arm.com>
> Subject: RE: [RFC] Proposed location to host the firmware handoff
> specification.
>
> Hi,
>
> My concern with a standalone gitlab project is that it might be treated as an
> experiment by the wider community and be neglected. Do we have any
> gitlab projects (tf.org or otherwise) that have some "official" value?
>
> @Jose, do you see the location getting used for all future spec reviews? If
> yes, then the gitlab project will acquire some legitimacy over time and we can
> start with it now. But if we see this as a one off, then I would prefer the spec
> being hosted on tf.org.
>
> For the actual mechanics, I prefer reviewing docs and later updates as
> fragments instead of looking at the file and a separate changelog. So a
> platform (gerrit, gitlab, etc) that facilitates the approach would be helpful
> IMO.
>
> -Varun
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jose Marinho via TF-A <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 July 2022 11:50 AM
> To: Simon Glass <sjg(a)chromium.org>; Rob Herring <robh(a)kernel.org>
> Cc: tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org; u-boot(a)lists.denx.de; boot-
> architecture(a)lists.linaro.org; François Ozog <francois.ozog(a)linaro.org>;
> Manish Pandey2 <Manish.Pandey2(a)arm.com>; Joanna Farley
> <Joanna.Farley(a)arm.com>; Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas(a)linaro.org>;
> Matteo Carlini <Matteo.Carlini(a)arm.com>; Dan Handley
> <Dan.Handley(a)arm.com>; Harb Abdulhamid
> (harb(a)amperecomputing.com) <harb(a)amperecomputing.com>; Samer El-
> Haj-Mahmoud <Samer.El-Haj-Mahmoud(a)arm.com>; nd <nd(a)arm.com>
> Subject: [TF-A] Re: [RFC] Proposed location to host the firmware handoff
> specification.
>
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Simon Glass <sjg(a)chromium.org>
> > Sent: 06 July 2022 09:34
> > To: Rob Herring <robh(a)kernel.org>
> > Cc: Jose Marinho <Jose.Marinho(a)arm.com>;
> > tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org; u-boot(a)lists.denx.de;
> > boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org; François Ozog
> > <francois.ozog(a)linaro.org>; Manish Pandey2
> <Manish.Pandey2(a)arm.com>;
> > Joanna Farley <Joanna.Farley(a)arm.com>; Ilias Apalodimas
> > <ilias.apalodimas(a)linaro.org>; Matteo Carlini
> > <Matteo.Carlini(a)arm.com>; Dan Handley <Dan.Handley(a)arm.com>; Harb
> > Abdulhamid
> > (harb(a)amperecomputing.com) <harb(a)amperecomputing.com>; Samer
> El-
> > Haj-Mahmoud <Samer.El-Haj-Mahmoud(a)arm.com>; nd <nd(a)arm.com>
> > Subject: Re: [RFC] Proposed location to host the firmware handoff
> > specification.
> >
> > Hi Rob,
> >
> > On Tue, 5 Jul 2022 at 11:27, Rob Herring <robh(a)kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 10:37 AM Simon Glass <sjg(a)chromium.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Rob,
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 5 Jul 2022 at 09:24, Rob Herring <robh(a)kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 3:24 AM Simon Glass <sjg(a)chromium.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Jose,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think this is correct. TF-A is a project that aims to
> > > > > > replace U-Boot SPL (and perhaps other components) with more
> > > > > > closed firmware, e.g. the permissive license.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This spec needs to be in a neutral place, not captive of one project.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Given its close relationship to device tree, I suggest
> > > > > > github.com/devicetree-org
> > > > >
> > > > > The only relationship to DT I see is DT is a payload as is ACPI.
> > > > > So I don't think dt.org is the right place.
> > > >
> > > > Actually I was about to email you about this. Here's how I see it.
> > > >
> > > > DT is a base structure to allow self-describing data to be stored.
> > > > This is in contrast with ACPI where there is just a header, but it
> > > > is not possible to read the data without specific parsing code for
> > > > the particular table types. Let's ignore ACPI for this discussion.
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately DT has an overhead and is too expensive for early
> > > > firmware use. It takes 3-4KB of code for libfdt as well as extra
> > > > code and data to read properties, etc.
> > > >
> > > > Transfer List aims to bridge the gap, allowing simple C structures
> > > > to be put into a tagged data structure. The intention is that
> > > > anything more complex than that would use DT.
> > > >
> > > > So there is at least some relationship: simple stuff = Transfer
> > > > list, complex stuff = DT.
> > >
> > > That's a stretch IMO. Perhaps if this was a new output (DTB) format
> > > for easier parsing, I'd agree. It's related to DT only as much as
> > > any other data passed between 2 boot components (remember
> ATAGS?).
> >
> > Yes it is a stretch. I'm just making the case.
> >
> > >
> > > > The Transfer List spec specifies the data format for each entry
> > > > type (the analog to the schema). The DT provides the format and
> > > > schema for more complicated stuff.
> > > >
> > > > We could perhaps put it in an entirely separate repo, but to me
> > > > there is a relationship with DT.
> > >
> > > It seems to me that TF is the main driver and user of this, so I
> > > don't see the issue with them hosting it at least to start as long
> > > as there's not barriers to contributions. It's just a namespace like
> > > devicetree-org. Personally, I'd be more concerned on what the source
> > > format is (I assume the plan is not to commit PDFs) and what the
> > > output generation is. GH has a lot of nice features to support that
> > > which we've used for the DT spec and EBBR.
>
> The default working plan is for the source format to be sphinx.
> Other alternatives/suggestions are welcome.
>
> The output generated should be html (pdf can be supported too for
> 0/negligible effort).
> This generation process can and will most likely evolve over time, depending
> on community direction/desire and the tools we have at our disposal.
> The process should be as automated as possible given any practical
> constraints 😊 .
>
> Regards,
> Jose
>
> >
> > Yes the DT spec works well and I hope the same thing can be used.
> >
> > >
> > > I'm not saying no to devicetree-org either. If the consensus is to
> > > put it there, I really don't care so much as it takes less time to
> > > create a new repo there than to write this email.
> >
> > I do hope that this can become a standard beyond ARM, e.g. with Intel
> > and another i can think of. Intel is essentially trying to create a
> > different thing independently, although has apparently adjusted to use
> > device tree due to its self-describing properties. I suspect that
> > having this spec in an ARM site would be a barrier to that.
> >
> > I am OK with ARM TF being the means to get this into the open, but not
> > with it being the final destination.
> >
> > If we cannot agree on anything better, I am happy with creating a new
> > project on github. We'll need to pick someone to own it and make final
> > calls when there is disagreement.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Simon
> --
> TF-A mailing list -- tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org To unsubscribe send an
> email to tf-a-leave(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Hi all,
Sorry for the late notice, but there will not be an EBBR meeting today. There hasn’t been any really activity recently. Also, I’m handing over EBBR responsibility to Vincent Stehlé, so I’ve cancelled the meeting series if you were receiving that invite. I’ll leave it up to Vincent on when it would be best to resume meetings (probably after the summer).
Let me know if you have any questions
Cheers,
g.
I don't have anything for the agenda, so there is no meeting today
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.
All,
On today's call I would like to talk about DT in other contexts:
* To describe the contents of a given PCI card (even on a ACPI based system)
* To describe what is attached to a given FDTI device (Multiple I2C
devices etc)
We can open to other topics as well.
Zoom:
2PM UTC, 10AM US east
https://linaro-org.zoom.us/j/96170428801?pwd=elBJNFdVMFJub0UzanFUcVQxTHBqdz…
Thanks,
Bill
--
Bill Mills
Principal Technical Consultant, Linaro
+1-240-643-0836
TZ: US Eastern
Work Schedule: Tues/Wed/Thur
All,
On today's call I would like to talk about DT in other contexts:
* To describe the contents of a given PCI card (even on a ACPI based system)
* To describe what is attached to a given FDTI device (Multiple I2C
devices etc)
We can open to other topics as well.
Zoom:
2PM UTC, 10AM US east
https://linaro-org.zoom.us/j/96170428801?pwd=elBJNFdVMFJub0UzanFUcVQxTHBqdz…
Thanks,
Bill
--
Bill Mills
Principal Technical Consultant, Linaro
+1-240-643-0836
TZ: US Eastern
Work Schedule: Tues/Wed/Thur
All,
I am getting a lot of declines for the April 18th meeting.
I am going to go ahead and cancel now. For everyone that has a long
weekend ahead, enjoy!
Thanks,
Bill
--
Bill Mills
Principal Technical Consultant, Linaro
+1-240-643-0836
TZ: US Eastern
Work Schedule: Tues/Wed/Thur
All,
Do we have any suggested topics for Monday April 4?
Thanks,
Bill
--
Bill Mills
Principal Technical Consultant, Linaro
+1-240-643-0836
TZ: US Eastern
Work Schedule: Tues/Wed/Thur
Everyone in the to: list,
Are you all free today at 3PM UTC (11 AM US East)?
Oliver,
See the DTE home page for a description of the meeting, the Zoom link
and a google ics file.
However I just added you to the invite going forward. Just delete after
we are done if you do not want to continue.
The meeting is tied to UK time so right now appears 1 hour later than
normal as US has done DST and the UK will not until next week.
Thanks,
Bill
On 3/7/22 11:00 AM, Olivier Masse wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> Could you send us some pointers to join your call ?
>
> Sorry for this late request.
>
> Olivier
>
> On mar., 2022-02-22 at 15:00 -0500, Bill Mills wrote:
>> Caution: EXT Email
>>
>> Oliver,
>>
>> On 2/22/22 7:36 AM, Olivier Masse wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> Could we postpone to the next call ?
>>>
>>
>> Yes we can discuss on March 7.
>>
>> However I think you need to define what you want to discuss.
>>
>> First of, there is nothing in your suggested DTS that tells Linux (or
>> other OS) that it should not map the memory area. It looks to me as
>> you should include the "no-map" property in your node.
>>
>> How will the Linux video/graphics drivers refer to this node? I
>> presume
>> by phandle, right?
>>
>> Are you setting any suggested naming convention for the node name
>> (after
>> you fix the node name to include @address)?
>>
>> You are defining a compatible string in the node. The current
>> suggestion is not in the spec. It could be "optee,sdp" if you get
>> optee
>> stakeholders to agree. What should be the definition of "optee,sdp".
>> I presume it means secure data path but that could mean a ton of
>> things.
>> Will sdp always mean DRM protected media playback or could it include
>> more?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Bill
>>
>>> BR / Olivier
>>>
>>> On mar., 2022-02-15 at 13:46 -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>> Caution: EXT Email
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 8:21 AM Bill Mills <bill.mills(a)linaro.org
>>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Rob,
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you confirm for the DT call on Feb 21?
>>>>
>>>> I'm on holiday on the 21st.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Oliver,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/11/22 4:54 AM, Olivier Masse wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Bill,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NXP had a discussion with Linaro about this optee os issue:
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co…
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is implemented by this first draft here:
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co…
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could we be part of the next Device Tree call to discuss
>>>>>> about
>>>>>> adding
>>>>>> a reserved memory in optee os embedded DT ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for bringing it up.
>>>>> I have skimmed the PR threads and the discussion seems to be:
>>>>> 1) OP-TEE internal issues
>>>>> 2) DT standards questions and issues
>>>>>
>>>>> For the DT call we need to focus on #2 above.
>>>>> We will definitely need Rob for this discussion so we need to
>>>>> do it
>>>>> when
>>>>> he can join. (If we don't resolve the question in this email
>>>>> thread
>>>>> before then.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Context for all:
>>>>>
>>>>> SDP here is related to DRM protected playback of media streams.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jens comment in PR:
>>>>> > So far we have managed to avoid defining our own bindings
>>>>> in OP-
>>>>> TEE,
>>>>> > instead we've been able to reuse already established
>>>>> bindings.
>>>>> With
>>>>> > this you're proposing something new. I'm not sure of the
>>>>> best
>>>>> way of
>>>>> > doing such a thing. Are we sure there is nothing to reuse?
>>>>> > If not: How should it be reviewed? Who should review it?
>>>>>
>>>>> DTS in PR:
>>>>> /*
>>>>> * Copyright (c) 2021, NXP. All rights reserved.
>>>>> *
>>>>> * SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
>>>>> */
>>>>>
>>>>> /dts-v1/;
>>>>>
>>>>> / {
>>>>> #address-cells = <1>;
>>>>> #size-cells = <0>;
>>>>>
>>>>> reserved-memory {
>>>>> #address-cells = <1>;
>>>>> #size-cells = <1>;
>>>>>
>>>>> sdp_mem {
>>>>> compatible = "optee-sdp";
>>>>> reg = <0x3E800000 0x00400000>;
>>>>> };
>>>>> };
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> However it was modified after that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oliver: please reply to this thread (on list please) with the
>>>>> final
>>>>> DTS
>>>>> you are proposing. fix DT conventions and what are you doing
>>>>> with
>>>>> the
>>>>> no-map property if anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is the memory above meant to be visible to NS world AND S
>>>>> world? Or is
>>>>> just for secure world.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Bill
>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>> Olivier Masse
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Bill Mills
>>>>> Principal Technical Consultant, Linaro
>>>>> +1-240-643-0836
>>>>> TZ: US Eastern
>>>>> Work Schedule: Tues/Wed/Thur
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> boot-architecture mailing list --
>>>>> boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org
>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to
>>>>> boot-architecture-leave(a)lists.linaro.org
>>
>> --
>> Bill Mills
>> Principal Technical Consultant, Linaro
>> +1-240-643-0836
>> TZ: US Eastern
>> Work Schedule: Tues/Wed/Thur
--
Bill Mills
Principal Technical Consultant, Linaro
+1-240-643-0836
TZ: US Eastern
Work Schedule: Tues/Wed/Thur
