boot-architecture

boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org

7 participants
651 discussions

Re: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] [PATCH 1/2] Add revision history table

by Grant Likely

On 24/05/2018 14:33, Daniel Thompson wrote: > On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 05:14:00PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote: >> Adds the revision history table to the markup. >> >> Resolves: #4 >> Signed-off-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely(a)arm.com> >> --- >> source/ebbr.rst | 13 +++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/source/ebbr.rst b/source/ebbr.rst >> index 4100b2f..b6e48d6 100644 >> --- a/source/ebbr.rst >> +++ b/source/ebbr.rst >> @@ -18,6 +18,19 @@ Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA. >> :alt: Creative Commons License >> :align: right >> >> +.. tabularcolumns:: l c p{11.5cm} >> +.. table:: Revision History >> + >> + ================= ===== ============================================= >> + Date Issue Changes >> + ================= ===== ============================================= >> + 20 September 2018 B Confidentiality Change, EBBR version 0.51 >> + TBD TBD - Relicense to CC-BY-SA 4.0 >> + - Added Devicetree requirements >> + - Added Multiprocessor boot requirements >> + - Transitioned to reStructuredText and GitHub >> + ================= ===== ============================================= > > Is this going to be hand curated (e.g. patches that fail to update > changelog properly get caught during review) or will it be derived > post-hoc from the git history? Hand curated until someone writes a script to scrape commit lines. I don't think this table needs to be exhaustive though. Just the big picture items. Anyone who really cares can read the changebar version, or even just the git history. g. > > > Daniel. > 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.

7 years, 3 months

[PATCH 1/2] Add revision history table

by Grant Likely

Adds the revision history table to the markup. Resolves: #4 Signed-off-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely(a)arm.com> --- source/ebbr.rst | 13 +++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+) diff --git a/source/ebbr.rst b/source/ebbr.rst index 4100b2f..b6e48d6 100644 --- a/source/ebbr.rst +++ b/source/ebbr.rst @@ -18,6 +18,19 @@ Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA. :alt: Creative Commons License :align: right +.. tabularcolumns:: l c p{11.5cm} +.. table:: Revision History + + ================= ===== ============================================= + Date Issue Changes + ================= ===== ============================================= + 20 September 2018 B Confidentiality Change, EBBR version 0.51 + TBD TBD - Relicense to CC-BY-SA 4.0 + - Added Devicetree requirements + - Added Multiprocessor boot requirements + - Transitioned to reStructuredText and GitHub + ================= ===== ============================================= + ******************* About This Document ******************* -- 2.13.0

7 years, 3 months

[PATCH] Issue#10 Add EBBR compliance test

by Udit Kumar

This patch adds a appendix for EBBR compliance test. Signed-off-by: Udit Kumar <udit.kumar(a)nxp.com> --- source/ebbr.rst | 16 ++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+) diff --git a/source/ebbr.rst b/source/ebbr.rst index 40f03f1..880f126 100644 --- a/source/ebbr.rst +++ b/source/ebbr.rst @@ -557,6 +557,22 @@ Service UEFI § EFI_ISCSI_INITIATOR_NAME_PROTOCOL 16.2 ========================================== ====== +******************************************* +APPENDIX E - EBBR Compliance Tests +******************************************* + +UEFI Self Certification Tests (SCT) test the UEFI implementation. +EBBR is leveraging from UEFI, UEFI SCT test suites check for compliance +against the EBBR specification. +To build UEFI SCT, please refer https://github.com/UEFI/UEFI-SCT + +EBBR is very flexible and many features are platform dependent. +Therefore platform owner can decide, to implement and test optional features +with UEFI SCT. + + + + .. note:: Support for iSCSI is only required on machines that lack persistent storage, such as a, HDD. This configuration is intended for thin clients and compute-only nodes -- 1.9.1

7 years, 3 months

[PATCH] Trivial: Fix glossary entrys

by Grant Likely

Some of the glossary terms got split across lines which put half the term in the description instead of the entry name. Fix the 'AArch64 State' and 'EFI Loaded Image' entries. Signed-off-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely(a)arm.com> --- source/ebbr.rst | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/source/ebbr.rst b/source/ebbr.rst index 4269b49..9e787ed 100644 --- a/source/ebbr.rst +++ b/source/ebbr.rst @@ -77,16 +77,16 @@ This document uses the following terms and abbreviations. The 64-bit ARM instruction set used in AArch64 state. All A64 instructions are 32 bits. - AArch64 - state The ARM 64-bit Execution state that uses 64-bit general purpose + AArch64 state + The ARM 64-bit Execution state that uses 64-bit general purpose registers, and a 64-bit program counter (PC), Stack Pointer (SP), and exception link registers (ELR). AArch64 Execution state provides a single instruction set, A64. - EFI - Loaded Image An executable image to be run under the UEFI environment, + EFI Loaded Image + An executable image to be run under the UEFI environment, and which uses boot time services. EL0 -- 2.13.0

7 years, 3 months

EBBR Weekly - Notes 17 May 2018

by Grant Likely

https://github.com/ARM-software/ebbr/wiki/EBBR-Notes-2018.05.17 # 17 May 2018 ## Attendees * Alex Graf (SUSE) * Ryan Harkin (Linaro) * Rob Herring (Linaro) * Udit Kumar (NXP) * Grant Likely (Arm) * Bill Mills (TI) * Tom Rini (Konsulko) * Daniel Thompson (Linaro) ## Agenda * Issue/Action review * Any other business ## Notes ### Issue/Action review * Issue #1 - Bill will assign to himself * Issue #2 - Leif on Holiday * Issue #3 - Daniel will take * Issue #4 - grant to take * Issue #8 - partitioning tool rules - Daniel will take * Issue #10 & 11 - Assign to Udit * Issue #10 - Document how to certify * Dong added that we can probably leverage UEFI SCT * Issue #13 - Daniel to take ### Other Business Rob: Looks like there is interest from the Google/Android folks in EBBR * Rob to set up a meeting with the relevant folks 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.

7 years, 3 months

[PATCH] Remove MP Start protocol from EBBR and revert to PSCI v1.0

by Grant Likely

EBBR platforms are unlikely to ever use the MP Start protocol used in some AArch64 server systems. It was only used to support platforms without EL3. No more EL2-only platforms are expected, and MP Start is being removed from the next release of SBBR. Devicetree platforms in the same scenario use the Linux spin table protocol instead. MP Start was only included for completeness to align the SBBR and EBBR specifications. Therefore remove it entirely, leaving PSCI and spin table as the only acceptable implementations. Also revert to PSCI v1.0 as that is the minimum level of functionality required. PSCI v1.1 adds new capabilities, but is not required for interoperability. Suggested-by: Dong Wei <dong.wei(a)arm.com> Signed-off-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely(a)arm.com> --- source/ebbr.rst | 15 +++++---------- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/source/ebbr.rst b/source/ebbr.rst index 40f03f1..4100b2f 100644 --- a/source/ebbr.rst +++ b/source/ebbr.rst @@ -329,10 +329,9 @@ Power State Coordination Interface specification[PSCI_]. Platforms without EL3 must implement one of: - PSCI at EL2 (leaving only EL1 available to an operating system) -- MP Startup for Arm[MPSTART_] (ACPI Parking Protocol) on an ACPI platform -- Linux AArch64 spin tables[LINUXA64BOOT_] on a Devicetree platform +- Linux AArch64 spin tables[LINUXA64BOOT_] (Devicetree only) -However, the MP Startup and Spintable protocols are strongly discouraged. +However, the spin table protocol is strongly discouraged. Future versions of this specification will only allow PSCI, and PSCI should be implemented in all new designs. @@ -575,13 +574,9 @@ EFI_ISCSI_INITIATOR_NAME_PROTOCOL 16.2 <https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/tre…>`_, Linux kernel -.. [MPSTART] `MP Startup for Arm - <https://acpica.org/sites/acpica/files/MP%20Startup%20for%20ARM%20platforms.…>`_, - 20 December 2012, `Microsoft <http://microsoft.com>`_ - -.. [PSCI] `Power State Coordination Interface Issue D (PSCI v1.1) - <http://infocenter.arm.com/help//topic/com.arm.doc.den0022d/Power_State_Coor…>`_, - 21 April 2017, `Arm Limited <http://arm.com>`_ +.. [PSCI] `Power State Coordination Interface Issue C (PSCI v1.0) + <https://static.docs.arm.com/den0022/c/DEN0022C_Power_State_Coordination_Int…>`_ + 30 January 2015, `Arm Limited <http://arm.com>`_ .. [SBBR] `Arm Server Base Boot Requirements specification Issue B (v1.0) <https://static.docs.arm.com/den0044/b/DEN0044B_Server_Base_Boot_Requirement…>`_ -- 2.13.0

7 years, 3 months

Re: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] [PATCH] Be specific about DT or ACPI requirements

by Grant Likely

On 18/05/2018 18:08, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 06:04:11PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote: > >> My bikeshed now has a sign that reads: > >> +As stated above, EBBR systems must not provide both ACPI >> +and Devicetree tables at the same time. >> +Systems that support both interfaces must provide a configuration >> +mechanism to select either ACPI or Devicetree, >> +and must ensure only the selected interface is provided >> +to the OS loader. > > I think that's a very pleasing shade, thanks! :) > > (Sorry, I spent far too long working on interoperability of some > particularly poorly specified networking standards so now have > difficulty reading any spec without assuming the worst.) > Thanks! I'll take that as you're Acked-by then. :-) g.

7 years, 3 months

Re: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] [PATCH] Be specific about DT or ACPI requirements

by Grant Likely

On 18/05/2018 17:45, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 05:28:10PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote: > >> +Devicetree tables at the same time. Platforms that want to offer >> +both ACPI and Devicetree solutions must implement a boot time >> +mechanism to select one or the other, before the OS Loader is >> +executed. > > How about "...must configure this using a mechanism that ensures that > one or the other is chosen and provided to the OS loader when it is > executed"? It doesn't really matter for sensible systems but I can see > someone misreading the above and thinking there must be a prompt on boot > or something, I do think this is me being paranoid about perverse > implementors though. > My bikeshed now has a sign that reads: +As stated above, EBBR systems must not provide both ACPI +and Devicetree tables at the same time. +Systems that support both interfaces must provide a configuration +mechanism to select either ACPI or Devicetree, +and must ensure only the selected interface is provided +to the OS loader. g.

7 years, 3 months

Re: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] [PATCH] Move citations to the end of the document

by Grant Likely

On 18/05/2018 14:18, Tom Rini wrote: > On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 02:06:08PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote: > >> Use reStructuredText citation markup to capture all referenced >> documents. Sphinx will take care of creating a table of references at >> the end of the document. >> >> Fixes #6 >> Signed-off-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely(a)arm.com> > [snip] >> @@ -132,22 +115,11 @@ This document defines the boot and runtime services that are expected by an >> Operating System or hypervisor, for an ARM embedded device, which follows the >> UEFI specification. >> >> -This document references the following specification and versions: >> - >> - UEFI 2.7 >> - Published June 2017, includes the AArch64 bindings. >> - > > Is it clear enough when rendering the final document that here we don't > need a link down to the UEFI reference? Not sure what you mean. Can you elaborate? I do think the introduction chapter needs to be reworked anyway to talk about standardizing the firmware interface. It too quickly jumps to "when UEFI is chosen", when what I'd rather it present is "here is a standardized platform taylored to embedded systems"... and then get to UEFI is part of that standard. (it isn't about chosing UEFI; it is about choosing a standard platform) > >> This specification defines the boot and runtime services for a physical system, >> including services that are required for virtualization. >> It does not define a standardized abstract virtual machine view for a Guest >> Operating System. >> >> -When present with in a system, this document makes additional references to the >> -Power State Coordination Interface: >> - >> - PSCI 1.1 >> - Published April 2017. >> - > [snip] >> @@ -306,9 +278,10 @@ command: >> >> - EfiWarmReset() >> >> -.. note:: When Runtime Services and PSCI co-exist, it is anticipated that >> - Operating System calls to reset the system will go via Runtime Services and >> - not directly to PSCI. >> +.. note:: On platforms implementing the Power State Coordination Interface >> + specification[PSCI_], it is still required that EBBR compliant >> + Operating Systems calls to reset the system will go via Runtime Services >> + and not directly to PSCI. >> >> Set Variable >> ------------ > > Is all of the above equivalent in terms of talking about PSCI? Thanks! Ummm, yes? But I'm not sure that I understand what you're asking. Thanks for the reviews on all the other patches. g.

7 years, 3 months

Multi-cpu boot protocol?

by Grant Likely

I'm adding some EBBR text around the CPU state at boot and I've lost track of what is being done for multicore bringup. What is the current state-of-the-art for multicore boot protocol when PSCI isn't available? SBBR allows for the MP Boot Protocol; with the intend of phasing it out: https://acpica.org/sites/acpica/files/MP%20Startup%20for%20ARM%20platforms.… The kernel documents the spin table method: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/tre… What are the cool kids currently doing here? 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.

7 years, 3 months

← Newer
1
...
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
...
66
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

boot-architecture