Hi Francois, I don’t feel that it is the responsibility of the BBR spec or the SystemReady program to describe how the partners are implementing their firmware solutions. And these three categories are not exhaustive. I am not sure what purpose do we serve by providing such a list which we may not even able to make it exhaustive. It is not the intent for BBR spec or the SystemReady program to dictate how our partners implement their firmware. We certainly support OSF effort in OCP but that is responsibility of the OCP badge.
Thanks, -DW From: François Ozog <francois.o...@linaro.org> Date: Monday, October 25, 2021 at 4:51 AM To: Dong Wei <dong....@arm.com> Cc: Boot Architecture Mailman List <boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org> Subject: Re: SystemReady and OCP Checklist Hi Dong, On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 at 13:45, Dong Wei <dong....@arm.com<mailto:dong....@arm.com>> wrote: In 4.4 of BBR when discussing LBBR recipe we do provide a note to point to the OSF checklist. However, SystemReady is not the place to require it. Arm supports both open and commercial firmware. Indeed. Should we express not a requirement but a categorization so that customers can know what is the firmware level of ownership (valid even with commercial firmware)? Category 1: full open source Category 2: mostly open source with binaries redistribution license (OSF) Category 3: commercial firmware with private redistribution license Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 25, 2021, at 6:44 AM, François Ozog > <francois.o...@linaro.org<mailto:francois.o...@linaro.org>> wrote: > > Hi > > back in April we had a workshop on firmware sustainability. Since then a > number of discussions related concerns on closed source components in TF-A > and U-Boot communities. We are also approaching a technical maturity level > on SystemReady that it looks timely to revisit this aspect. > > Would it be a good move to adopt the Open System Firmware check list > <https://www.opencompute.org/wiki/Open_System_Firmware/Checklist> as part > of SystemReady? > > *NOTE1: believe SystemReady is at right level as it addresses compliance > of platforms. EBBR is a technical recipe to make it work for a particular > environment (like SBBR) and so not the best place to deal with > redistribution license of binary blobs and other platform owernship > aspects.* > > *NOTE2/ Adoption could come in different forms: referring to it, crafting a > similar one for SystemReady scope, any other smart ways of doing it.* > > > Cheers > > FF > > -- > François-Frédéric Ozog | *Director Business Development* > T: +33.67221.6485 > francois.o...@linaro.org<mailto:francois.o...@linaro.org> | Skype: ffozog > _______________________________________________ > boot-architecture mailing list > boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org<mailto:boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org> > https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. -- [https://static.linaro.org/common/images/linaro-logo-web.png] François-Frédéric Ozog | Director Business Development T: +33.67221.6485 francois.o...@linaro.org<mailto:francois.o...@linaro.org> | Skype: ffozog IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. _______________________________________________ boot-architecture mailing list boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture
