On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 6:25 PM Heinrich Schuchardt <[email protected]> wrote: > On 6/5/19 3:55 PM, Francois Ozog wrote: > > II - Desired DT for EBBR policy > > > > 1) "upstream" DT > > > > 1.1) who provides DT > > Board vendor make a <reference DT> that describes every hardware piece, > > firmware provides a DT to OS, OS may be able to validate the DT but not > > override it in secureboot production. For security and boot latency > > consideration, firmware may actually need two DTs: a stripped version from > > <reference DT> to operate on the minimal set of devices it want to bring up > > the OS (say the <firmware DT>), a pruned/adapted version from <reference > > DT> , ie without devices firmware wants to control and conforms to EBBR > > spec (say the <OS DT>). > > Can we get the Linux Foundation involved to integrate their view?
Who from the Linux Foundation are you thinking about? The LF-proper doesn't really operate at this level. Some of the groups might, like LF Edge. g. _______________________________________________ boot-architecture mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture
