On Thu, 18 Dec 2025 at 15:01, Vincent Stehlé <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 10:24:41AM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > > Hello Ilias, hello Vincent, > > > > I am currently reviewing EBBR v2.4.0-pre1. > > > > I guess a compliant software present all four of the GUIDs so that a > client > > looking for a certain compliance level will hit a match. > > Hi Heinrich, > > This is my understanding as well: as far as the EBBR conformance profiles > are > concerned, a platform should advertise all the profiles it supports. We > could > certainly clarify this aspect a bit more. > I think we can already publkish all of the in U-Boot right Vincent? At least ONELab seems to pass ACS 3.0 with u-boot 2025.10 Cheers /Ilias > > > > > Currently U-Boot only presents the > EFI_CONFORMANCE_PROFILE_EBBR_2_1_GUID. We > > should evaluate what is missing with respect to the other levels. > > > > What I am missing in the EBBR spec is a table with the requirements > > indicating in which version each requirement was added. > > > > Testing would also become easier if each requirement were numbered. > > Good points. > > We need to find some practical way for the sources. > Maybe a second Sphinx extension? > > Here is issue #156 for tracking this. > This sound like we should maybe revisit #118, too. > > Best regards, > Vincent. > > #118 https://github.com/ARM-software/ebbr/pull/118 > #156 https://github.com/ARM-software/ebbr/issues/156 > > > > > Best regards > > > > Heinrich > _______________________________________________ boot-architecture mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
