On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 05:35:40PM +0100, Francois Ozog wrote: > > > 0.2 - normative text > > > The normative section shall be stated clearly: is " 1.2. Guiding > > > Principles" normative? > > > > > > IETF and ETSI have different language conventions to express > > > absolutely mandated and various levels of optionality. This spec may > > > be red by Telecom people or Linux people. Their interpretation may be > > > erroneous on words such as "shall" (ETSI "SHALL" = "IETF "MUST"). The > > > language need to be explicit. > > > > Fair point. Do you have a suggesting on how to proceed here? > > > > Thanks Leif for the links. I tend to like the ETSI one because it is > somewhat complete on necessary english grammar stuff. > But I am flexible, important we state explicitly the reference > document and we use the language constructs.
Does ETSI offer us "features" that are missing from RFC 2119. Personally I would favour RFC 2119 simply because it is so much better known than the ETSI drafting rules. If you cite RFC 2119 and I don't have to go and read anything... and even if I did it is super concise and quick to read. Cite ETSI drafting rules, clause 3 and I have to put in a lot more effort. > > > > I - protective offsets > > > EBBR 1.0 states in "4.1. Partitioning of Shared Storage" that > > > "Automatic partitioning tools (e.g. an OS installer) must not create > > > partitions within the first 1MiB of storage, or delete, move, or > > > modify protective partition entries." > > > > > > StandaloneMM is 2.5MB by itself with U-Boot being over 1MB without the > > > variable rework done and update capsules. 4MB seems the minimum. 8MB > > > to get margin and 16MB for A/B scheme. > > > > The 1MB was to deal with limitations in the boot rom. If the boot rom > > needs extra space, would it not be better to have an initial loader that > > understands partitioning in the 1st 1MB and load the remaining images > > from a real partition? > > This is driven by the BL2 which is platform specific and I am not sure > we can have any influence. > The flashimage.bin in a number of system consists of a (blob) FIP that > has BL2, SCP stuff, BL31, BL32, BL33. > Ilias upstream U-Boot patches to change from "ADR" to "ADRL" because > the code grew too much. I'm not quite sure I understand the concern here. Are you still working on systems where the boot ROM mandates using MBR partitioning and attempting to put secure boot on it? If so perhaps we could simply discontinue MBR support for systems with secure boot! In all other cases a bulky firmware installed on shared media must have a protective partition (with the appropriate flags) to prevent partition tools from damaging it anyway. In such a case it does not matter if there is firmware above the 1MB boundary. > > > EBBR same paragraph also states: > > > "Automatic partitioning tools (e.g. an OS installer) must not create > > > partitions within the first 1MiB of storage, or delete, move, or > > > modify protective partition entries. Manual partitioning tools should > > > provide warnings when modifying protective partitions or creating > > > partitions within the first 1MiB." > > > > > > is it expected that Linaro upstreams changes in installation tools, > > > partition tools to conform to this (with updated to be agreed > > > minimum)? > > > > I would expect so, if they aren't already doing that. > > Will need to create initiatives for that. Pretty much all tools already respect the 1MiB boundary. Sometimes they use an "expert mode" rather than a explicit warning but I'd view that as equivalent. Daniel. _______________________________________________ boot-architecture mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture
