On 23:20 Tue 18 Oct , Grant Likely wrote: > 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. So take a look on my proposal of the boot menu with DTB as input
Best Regards, J. _______________________________________________ boot-architecture mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture
