Hi Julius, On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 at 15:56, Julius Werner <jwer...@chromium.org> wrote:
> Thank you all for your feedback. >> >> It appears that in theory we are all happy with using bloblist with few >> implementation details which needs to be taken care of during >> implementation. >> > > Just to clarify: are you using "bloblist" as a general term for the > concept of a simple linked list of tagged data blobs, or to refer > specifically to the U-Boot implementation with that name? The existing TF-A > implementation (bl_aux_params) is basically identical in concept to the > U-Boot bloblist, but not binary compatible. Are we talking about just > keeping that, or throwing it away in order to reimplement the exact > structure U-Boot is using? (I would prefer to keep the bl_aux_params as > they are to avoid disrupting existing uses, of course. Making > backwards-incompatible changes to an interface that passes across multiple > repos and firmware components is always a big pain.) > My understanding is that it is U-Boot's bloblist, since it is the lynchpin here, but perhaps with some changes to support features it may lack. It has been in U-Boot for a couple of years and is supported in TPL, SPL and U-Boot proper. It has a good set of unit tests and should be easy enough to lift into other projects. Note that it is not really a linked list, though that is one of the extensions proposed. Of course every project would like not to change... For TF-A I wonder whether it will/should in fact use devicetree if there is a lot of complex data? TBD, I suppose. Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ boot-architecture mailing list boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture
