On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <[email protected]> wrote: > On 22:30 Mon 17 Oct , Grant Likely wrote: >> 2) Implement rudimentary boot menu support in u-boot (if it doesn't >> already exist). Doesn't need to be graphical, but at least have a >> default boot with a list of other boot options. > take a llok on Barebox > > The format I propose will use the menu implemetation to display the boot > choice > > I really think we can have barebox on server very quicly as barebox already > support the disk device and menu. > > And if need I've an implementation of the framebuffer console
I don't disagree here; but for the purpose of making recommendations for to the TSC for short term work items, it will not get any traction to propose barebox work items when I see pretty much zero interest among the Linaro member companies. That's why it is phrased in terms of u-boot specificly. > >> >> 3) Investigate implementing signed images a la secure boot. Need to >> investigate existing secure boot formats and policies so we don't do >> something gratuitously different. >> >> I don't disagree with the FIT image topics, but I'm not including them >> in this list of recommendations because they don't have much bearing >> on the task of working out ARM server infrastructure. > > They are usefull to have in one image multple kernel/dtb/initrd Yes it is for many embedded use cases. However, for the server use case the distribution vendors are pretty much needing separate kernel and initrd images since pretty much all their infrastructure is set up to work in that mode on x86. g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. _______________________________________________ boot-architecture mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture
