Hi Grant, I was on that meeting too. Michal Simek (Xilinx).
Thanks, Michal On 13.4.2018 21:48, Grant Likely wrote: > Here are the notes from yesterday’s meeting. Props to Daniel Thompson for > taking notes! > > Note: I didn’t capture the full list of attendees. If you were there, but > aren’t in the list then let me know so I can add you to the official list. > Eventually I’ll post these notes on a wiki for the project. > > 12 April 2018 > Attendees > - Grant Likely (Arm) > - Ryan Harken (Linaro) > - Ruchika Gupta (NXP) > - Tom Rini (Konsulko) > - Peter Robinson (Red Hat) > - Alex Graf (SUSE) > - Daniel Thompson (Linaro) > - Ben Eckermann > (Incomplete list; Did not get full list of dial ins) > > Agenda: > - Status and action item updates > - Other business > > Notes: > Status > - No progress on legal issues to get things shared for outside contributions > - No progress on converting EBBR to sphinx document > > Devicetree > - Committee meeting will shrink scope to cover governanceissues (process, > release process, etc). > - Will be starting a regular technical sync up call soon > > AOB > - EBBR and different architectures > - Alexander Graf has started talking among u-boot team about extending > linuxefi support more widely > - Udit K: What to do about architectures that are not yet in UEFI? > # Grant: Not really in scope for EBBR, they should work with UEFI forum > - Grant: EBBR should be opt in (i.e. architecture representatives join > us) rather then encompassing “everything” > - Udit K: What about big endian? > - Grant: Not UEFI… it merely looks like it. > - Tom: EBBR references other specifications, needs other specifications > to take big endian before we move on it > - Udit K: How to handle devicetree updates? > - Grant: DT owned by platform is important, not discussed how to update it > - Grant: Should we create a DT specific section in EBBR? > - Udit K: Ideally, yes. We understand devicetree is owned by the platform > but we have had better results using the devicetree in the kernel > - Peter: UEFI capsules? > - Alexander: Could use overlays to cope with difference between kernels > - Alexander: We cannot assume DTs will always be backwards compatible > - Grant: Historically have worked to ensure new kernels work with old > devicetrees but not old kernels with new DTs > - Need to make sure firmware can always be recovered to a ‘safe’ state, and > that DT updates don’t require reflashing the entire firmware. > > Action: form sub team to draft DT update requirements. > > When can others contribute? > - Expect to get things tidied up this week but the mailing list is open > please discuss things here! > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Arm.ebbr-discuss mailing list > arm.ebbr-disc...@arm.com > _______________________________________________ boot-architecture mailing list boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture
