Hello Ilias, hello Vincent,
I am currently reviewing EBBR v2.4.0-pre1.
I guess a compliant software present all four of the GUIDs so that a client looking for a certain compliance level will hit a match.
Currently U-Boot only presents the EFI_CONFORMANCE_PROFILE_EBBR_2_1_GUID. We should evaluate what is missing with respect to the other levels.
What I am missing in the EBBR spec is a table with the requirements indicating in which version each requirement was added.
Testing would also become easier if each requirement were numbered.
Best regards
Heinrich
Hi Heinrich
On Thu, 18 Dec 2025 at 11:24, Heinrich Schuchardt xypron.glpk@gmx.de wrote:
Hello Ilias, hello Vincent,
I am currently reviewing EBBR v2.4.0-pre1.
I guess a compliant software present all four of the GUIDs so that a client looking for a certain compliance level will hit a match.
Currently U-Boot only presents the EFI_CONFORMANCE_PROFILE_EBBR_2_1_GUID. We should evaluate what is missing with respect to the other levels.
What I am missing in the EBBR spec is a table with the requirements indicating in which version each requirement was added.
Testing would also become easier if each requirement were numbered.
We are currently doing testing. I don't see any failures against 2025.10, so I am assuming we are fine. The later requirements were mostly about 1. DT conformance 2. Functional testing of device like disk drives and ethernet interfaces.
Cheers /Ilias
Best regards
Heinrich
On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 10:24:41AM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
Hello Ilias, hello Vincent,
I am currently reviewing EBBR v2.4.0-pre1.
I guess a compliant software present all four of the GUIDs so that a client looking for a certain compliance level will hit a match.
Hi Heinrich,
This is my understanding as well: as far as the EBBR conformance profiles are concerned, a platform should advertise all the profiles it supports. We could certainly clarify this aspect a bit more.
Currently U-Boot only presents the EFI_CONFORMANCE_PROFILE_EBBR_2_1_GUID. We should evaluate what is missing with respect to the other levels.
What I am missing in the EBBR spec is a table with the requirements indicating in which version each requirement was added.
Testing would also become easier if each requirement were numbered.
Good points.
We need to find some practical way for the sources. Maybe a second Sphinx extension?
Here is issue #156 for tracking this. This sound like we should maybe revisit #118, too.
Best regards, Vincent.
#118 https://github.com/ARM-software/ebbr/pull/118 #156 https://github.com/ARM-software/ebbr/issues/156
Best regards
Heinrich
On Thu, 18 Dec 2025 at 15:01, Vincent Stehlé vincent.stehle@arm.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 10:24:41AM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
Hello Ilias, hello Vincent,
I am currently reviewing EBBR v2.4.0-pre1.
I guess a compliant software present all four of the GUIDs so that a
client
looking for a certain compliance level will hit a match.
Hi Heinrich,
This is my understanding as well: as far as the EBBR conformance profiles are concerned, a platform should advertise all the profiles it supports. We could certainly clarify this aspect a bit more.
I think we can already publkish all of the in U-Boot right Vincent? At least ONELab seems to pass ACS 3.0 with u-boot 2025.10
Cheers /Ilias
Currently U-Boot only presents the
EFI_CONFORMANCE_PROFILE_EBBR_2_1_GUID. We
should evaluate what is missing with respect to the other levels.
What I am missing in the EBBR spec is a table with the requirements indicating in which version each requirement was added.
Testing would also become easier if each requirement were numbered.
Good points.
We need to find some practical way for the sources. Maybe a second Sphinx extension?
Here is issue #156 for tracking this. This sound like we should maybe revisit #118, too.
Best regards, Vincent.
#118 https://github.com/ARM-software/ebbr/pull/118 #156 https://github.com/ARM-software/ebbr/issues/156
Best regards
Heinrich
On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 03:03:50PM +0200, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2025 at 15:01, Vincent Stehlé vincent.stehle@arm.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 10:24:41AM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
Hello Ilias, hello Vincent,
I am currently reviewing EBBR v2.4.0-pre1.
I guess a compliant software present all four of the GUIDs so that a
client
looking for a certain compliance level will hit a match.
Hi Heinrich,
This is my understanding as well: as far as the EBBR conformance profiles are concerned, a platform should advertise all the profiles it supports. We could certainly clarify this aspect a bit more.
I think we can already publkish all of the in U-Boot right Vincent?
Hi Ilias,
I think U-Boot publishes only the 2_1 GUID for the moment. [1] Let's add some more.
At least ONELab seems to pass ACS 3.0 with u-boot 2025.10
The ACS does not take the profiles into account for the moment, but doing so is planned as far as I know.
Best regards, Vincent.
[1] https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/blob/master/lib/efi_loader/efi_conformance....
Cheers /Ilias
boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org
-
Heinrich Schuchardt -
Ilias Apalodimas -
Vincent Stehlé