On 06/07/2018 18:28, William Mills wrote:
Grant,
Excellent. Some suggestions in-line:
On 07/06/2018 12:26 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
Give some rationale behind EBBR so the reader understands what problem
the specification is intended to solve.
Signed-off-by: Bill Mills <wmi...@ti.com>
[glikely: made it more verbose to make the intent clear]
Signed-off-by: Grant Likely <grant.lik...@arm.com>
Don't know the protocol but signed-off-by and/or reviewed-by me again.
Normally I'd add another reviewed by tag for you because I added a
significant amount of text, where s-o-b only tracks the authorship
chain. However, since I've already committed the change I'll merely make
a note in the commit text of the fixup.
+Guiding Principals
+==================
s/Principals/Principles/
You carried forward my mistake. Daniel correctly pointed out that we
are not talking about a helpful person.
Oops!
+Or in simpler terms, EBBR is designed to solve the embedded boot mess by
Instead of:
+migrating existing firmware projects (U-Boot) to a defined standard (UEFI).
How about
+ adding a defined standard (UEFI) to the existing firmware projects
(U-boot)
More accurate, less scary sounding. Makes it clear you are not changing
code bases. Some people still think UEFI is a code base.
Good catch. Fixed.
+- Plan to evolve over time
+
+ The first release of EBBR is firmly targeting current embedded hardware.
+ Future versions will add capabilities which may tighten the hardware
requirements.
+
Daniel asked if we want to drop the "hardware" here.
I'll read Daniel's comments and then respond from there.
+ However, existing compliant boards will remain compliant.
+
Scope
=====
This document defines the boot and runtime services that are expected by an
Yes, I like your enhanced version much better and it still has all the
points I wanted to make.
Thanks for the quick review.
g.
_______________________________________________
boot-architecture mailing list
boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture
