*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.
>
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
