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.
Please ignore this message. I'm testing the mailing list.
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 Team,
When trying to boot-up BeagleBoneBlack Platform using UEFI with below
procedure (instead of U-boot), ran into following issue.
Followed Web link :
https://github.com/tianocore/tianocore.github.io/wiki/BeagleBoardPkg#Beagle…
I had a doubt on the provided git repository in this procedure. Does this
repo supports BeagelBoneBlack Platform?
*Error when Tried in Qemu: *
EhcCreateUsb2Hc: capability length 0
EhcDriverBindingStart: failed to create USB2_HC
ERROR: Did not find Linux kernel.
[1] Linux from SD
-
VenHw(B615F1F5-5088-43CD-809C-A16E52487D00)/HD(1,MBR,0x00000000,0x3F,0x19FC0)/zImage
- Arguments: console=tty0 console=ttyS2,115200n8
root=UUID=a4af765b-c2b5-48f4-9564-7a4e9104c4f6 rootwait ro earlyprintk
- LoaderType: Linux kernel with ATAG support
[2] Shell
[3] Boot Manager
Start: qemu: terminating on signal 2
*Error ; sd Card : **DATA abort Error coming when tried booting thru
sd-card*
Could you please help in debug this issue?
Regards,
Mohan.
Hi,
Is there any way I can bring cpu-1 while cpu-0 is running bootloader ?
Need help with setting up C-environment for cpu-1.
Was able to set up PSCI framework.
Regards,
Atul
For people who does not know me I have been the EDK2 maintainer of the ARM Packages for the last 4 years. I took over the excellent work Andrew Fish and Eugene Cohen started few years before.
This week was my last week at ARM - my last day would be on Friday 17th (UK time). I have been learning a lot thanks to the UEFI community.
Being the ARM maintainer has been a great opportunity. I also had the chance to go to few conferences to discuss and present my work and meet few of you as part of my job.
I have been asked last week what is the new exciting place that makes me leave ARM. The answer is my own future start-up... I love challenges and I think this one is definitely one of the highest one I could find. It is actually quite scary but I am quite excited!
I could potentially have kept my role of EDK2 ARM maintainer with me but I would prefer to give the task to Leif Lindholm who has been a co-maintainer for almost two months. So I could fully focus on my new adventure.
Leif has been seating not far from me in the ARM office. We have also had regular meetings about UEFI. He has been at ARM Ltd longer than me and been involved in different Open Source projects. He has also been working on UEFI for Linaro for few (three?) years now.
I have been trying to publish as much work as I can on the work I have done on UEFI for the last 5 years and half at ARM Ltd in the last two weeks. Unfortunately, I am not sure I will have time to publish everything. But I will do my best to publish the most important bits...
Unfortunately, it is still too early to share more details about my future product, so I created a quick website (and found a neutral name) last week-end to allow people to follow the adventure: http://labapart.com/ (can either be pronounced as "Lab apart" or "Lab à Part").
If you would like to contact me, email me here: olivier.martin.fr(a)gmail.com and/or linkedin me: http://www.linkedin.com/in/olivierm.
Cheers,
Olivier
-- 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.
ARM Limited, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, Registered in England & Wales, Company No: 2557590
ARM Holdings plc, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, Registered in England & Wales, Company No: 2548782
Hi,
This is my first query on this list. I apologize for any mistake.
I have some queries on following patch :
https://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/boot-architecture/2013-June/000325.html
I am not able to see this patch in master branch.
Is this patch tested?
Also I want to know the underline firmware volume on which this patch has been tested?
Thanks & regards
Meenakshi Aggarwal
Hi Laszlo,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Laszlo Ersek [mailto:lersek@redhat.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 5:59 PM
> To: Sharma Bhupesh-B45370; edk2-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net;
> olivier.martin(a)arm.com; Leif Lindholm; boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org
> Subject: Re: AARCH64: Timer Dxe
>
> On 06/13/15 10:52, Sharma Bhupesh wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Can some ARM expert help me with my queries below.
> >
> > The overall context is that I cannot get the 'ArmPlatformPkg/Bds/Bds.c'
> auto-timeout to trigger.
> >
> > The following snippet of code shows how the timeout is created as a
> event using the CreateEvent and SetTimer APIs.
> >
> > However I cannot the SetTimer API triggering a call to the
> corresponding TimerDriverSetTimerPeriod API inside
> 'ArmPkg/Drivers/TimerDxe/TimerDxe.c'
>
> Do you reach the gBS->SetTimer() call at all? For example, if there was a
> non-volatile variable called Timeout, with value 0xFFFF or 0, that could
> prevent it.
Yes, via debugger tracing I can see that the gBS->SetTimer() call is indeed invoked and
calls DXE Core's respective CoreTimerXXXX() APIs
Regards,
Bhupesh
>
> >
> > if (Timeout != 0xFFFF) {
> > if (Timeout > 0) {
> > // Create the waiting events (keystroke and 1sec timer)
> > gBS->CreateEvent (EVT_TIMER, 0, NULL, NULL, &WaitList[0]);
> > gBS->SetTimer (WaitList[0], TimerPeriodic,
> EFI_SET_TIMER_TO_SECOND);
> > WaitList[1] = gST->ConIn->WaitForKey;
> >
> > // Start the timer
> > WaitIndex = 0;
> > Print(L"The default boot selection will start in ");
> > while ((Timeout > 0) && (WaitIndex == 0)) {
> > Print(L"%3d seconds",Timeout);
> > gBS->WaitForEvent (2, WaitList, &WaitIndex);
> > if (WaitIndex == 0) {
> > Print(L"\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b");
> > Timeout--;
> > }
> > }
> >
> > So, I just wanted to understand if the auto-timeout during boot works
> > on Juno-Rev1 and if yes, how does it connect to the underlying
> > ArmArchTimerLib
> >
> > Please help.
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Sharma Bhupesh-B45370
> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 4:01 PM
> >> To: edk2-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net; 'olivier.martin(a)arm.com'
> >> Subject: AARCH64: Timer Dxe
> >>
> >> Hi Olivier,
> >>
> >> 1. I am looking at the 'ArmPkg/Drivers/TimerDxe/TimerDxe.c' DXE
> >> driver and seeing how the timer interrupts are registered:
> >>
> >> // Install secure and Non-secure interrupt handlers
> >> // Note: Because it is not possible to determine the security state
> >> of the
> >> // CPU dynamically, we just install interrupt handler for both sec
> >> and non-sec
> >> // timer PPI
> >> Status = gInterrupt->RegisterInterruptSource (gInterrupt, PcdGet32
> >> (PcdArmArchTimerVirtIntrNum), TimerInterruptHandler);
> >> ASSERT_EFI_ERROR (Status);
> >>
> >> Status = gInterrupt->RegisterInterruptSource (gInterrupt, PcdGet32
> >> (PcdArmArchTimerHypIntrNum), TimerInterruptHandler);
> >> ASSERT_EFI_ERROR (Status);
> >>
> >> Status = gInterrupt->RegisterInterruptSource (gInterrupt, PcdGet32
> >> (PcdArmArchTimerSecIntrNum), TimerInterruptHandler);
> >> ASSERT_EFI_ERROR (Status);
> >>
> >> Status = gInterrupt->RegisterInterruptSource (gInterrupt, PcdGet32
> >> (PcdArmArchTimerIntrNum), TimerInterruptHandler);
> >> ASSERT_EFI_ERROR (Status);
> >>
> >> I wanted to understand how the Interrupt registration changes for PPI
> >> or SPI interrupt sources.
> >> As usually the Virtual, Hypervisor, Physical and Physical Non-Secure
> >> interrupts are PPI does the PPI number need to be defined as the PCD
> >> values in the same way as linux. The Linux gicv3 documentation says
> >> (Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic-v3.txt):
> >>
> >> SPI interrupts are in the range [0-987]. PPI interrupts are in the
> >> range [0-15].
> >>
> >> 2. Also one related question is whether on Juno Rev1, you are able to
> >> get the BootDelay to work via timer based events? If yes, can you
> >> please share if you achieve this by using the ARMv8 generic timer or
> >> the SP804 timer.
> >>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bhupesh
> >
Hi,
Can some ARM expert help me with my queries below.
The overall context is that I cannot get the 'ArmPlatformPkg/Bds/Bds.c' auto-timeout to trigger.
The following snippet of code shows how the timeout is created as a event using the CreateEvent and SetTimer APIs.
However I cannot the SetTimer API triggering a call to the corresponding TimerDriverSetTimerPeriod API inside 'ArmPkg/Drivers/TimerDxe/TimerDxe.c'
if (Timeout != 0xFFFF) {
if (Timeout > 0) {
// Create the waiting events (keystroke and 1sec timer)
gBS->CreateEvent (EVT_TIMER, 0, NULL, NULL, &WaitList[0]);
gBS->SetTimer (WaitList[0], TimerPeriodic, EFI_SET_TIMER_TO_SECOND);
WaitList[1] = gST->ConIn->WaitForKey;
// Start the timer
WaitIndex = 0;
Print(L"The default boot selection will start in ");
while ((Timeout > 0) && (WaitIndex == 0)) {
Print(L"%3d seconds",Timeout);
gBS->WaitForEvent (2, WaitList, &WaitIndex);
if (WaitIndex == 0) {
Print(L"\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b");
Timeout--;
}
}
So, I just wanted to understand if the auto-timeout during boot works on Juno-Rev1 and if yes, how does it connect to the underlying ArmArchTimerLib
Please help.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sharma Bhupesh-B45370
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 4:01 PM
> To: edk2-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net; 'olivier.martin(a)arm.com'
> Subject: AARCH64: Timer Dxe
>
> Hi Olivier,
>
> 1. I am looking at the 'ArmPkg/Drivers/TimerDxe/TimerDxe.c' DXE driver
> and seeing how the timer interrupts are registered:
>
> // Install secure and Non-secure interrupt handlers
> // Note: Because it is not possible to determine the security state of
> the
> // CPU dynamically, we just install interrupt handler for both sec and
> non-sec
> // timer PPI
> Status = gInterrupt->RegisterInterruptSource (gInterrupt, PcdGet32
> (PcdArmArchTimerVirtIntrNum), TimerInterruptHandler);
> ASSERT_EFI_ERROR (Status);
>
> Status = gInterrupt->RegisterInterruptSource (gInterrupt, PcdGet32
> (PcdArmArchTimerHypIntrNum), TimerInterruptHandler);
> ASSERT_EFI_ERROR (Status);
>
> Status = gInterrupt->RegisterInterruptSource (gInterrupt, PcdGet32
> (PcdArmArchTimerSecIntrNum), TimerInterruptHandler);
> ASSERT_EFI_ERROR (Status);
>
> Status = gInterrupt->RegisterInterruptSource (gInterrupt, PcdGet32
> (PcdArmArchTimerIntrNum), TimerInterruptHandler);
> ASSERT_EFI_ERROR (Status);
>
> I wanted to understand how the Interrupt registration changes for PPI or
> SPI interrupt sources.
> As usually the Virtual, Hypervisor, Physical and Physical Non-Secure
> interrupts are PPI does the PPI number need to be defined as the PCD
> values in the same way as linux. The Linux gicv3 documentation says
> (Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic-v3.txt):
>
> SPI interrupts are in the range [0-987]. PPI interrupts are in the range
> [0-15].
>
> 2. Also one related question is whether on Juno Rev1, you are able to get
> the BootDelay to work via timer based events? If yes, can you please
> share if you achieve this by using the ARMv8 generic timer or the SP804
> timer.
>
Regards,
Bhupesh
