On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 05:30:09PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote: > On 18/05/2018 16:39, Daniel Thompson wrote: > > On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 02:06:10PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote: > > > Scope doesn't need it's own chapter. Move it into the 'About This > > > Document' chapter. Also expand the text to place this document in > > > relation to the existing SBBR document. SBBR is the stricter of the two, > > > so EBBR can be considered a superset. (ie. all SBBR compliant platforms > > > are also EBBR compliant, but the converse is not true). > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Grant Likely <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > source/ebbr.rst | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------- > > > 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/source/ebbr.rst b/source/ebbr.rst > > > index 858bd01..700feba 100644 > > > --- a/source/ebbr.rst > > > +++ b/source/ebbr.rst > > > @@ -40,8 +40,29 @@ It leverages the prevalent industry standard firmware > > > specifications of UEFI. > > > Comments or change requests can be sent to [email protected]. > > > +Scope > > > +===== > > > +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 > > > > nit: Isn't Arm title cased these days? > > Cut and paste of existing text. I'll do a separate patch to sweep out the > old usage.
Ok. > > > > > > > > +UEFI specification. > > > + > > > +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. > > > + > > > +This specification is similar to the Arm Server Base Boot Requirements > > > +specification[SBBR_] in that it defines the firmware interface presented > > > to an > > > +operating system, with SBBR having stricter requirements than EBBR. EBBR > > > > Perhaps another nit but it would be good to say who the stricter > > requirements apply to (reducing requirements on firmware typically > > implies increasing requirements on the OS). > > How about: > > With SBBR having stricter requirements on hardware and firmware > than EBBR. Yes. Like this. As changed: Reviewed-by: Daniel Thompson <[email protected]> Daniel. _______________________________________________ boot-architecture mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture
