On 12.09.14 17:45, Rob Herring wrote: > On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote: >> >> >> On 12.09.14 17:05, Dennis Gilmore wrote: >>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:11:30 +0300 >>> Riku Voipio <riku.voi...@linaro.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I've just invited a bunch of attendees at linaro connect for >>>> cross-distribution meeting in the next connect. Sadly it's not >>>> officially on the scheduled talks, so there is no remote participation >>>> this time. However you still have a change to reply here and add items >>>> to our agenda :) >>>> >>>> Draft agenda: >>>> >>>> - Review status of various distributions ARMv7 and ARMv8 support >>>> - Discuss boot environment standardization (U-Boot/UEFI/GRUB..) >>>> - uEnv.txt >>> armv7 should all be standardising on extlinux.conf u-boot is rapidly >>> adopting it as the standard way for distros to boot, and have a >>> stable know interface between the distro and u-boot >> >> I'm personally not quite as passionate here. My main concern is that I >> want things to be consistent across the board at least inside of >> openSUSE. > > But the problem is vendors need clear instructions for how to > configure their u-boot correctly for distros. Having per distro > instructions is not going to work as they will ignore the distros they > don't care about at the time. They may not care about any distro > either, so we have to make it trivial to enable or default.
I agree. > >> There are platforms out there that simply load a boot.scr from >> SD card, so that's a mechanism I have to support anyway. >> >> That said, I wouldn't mind to provide another u-boot binary for that >> particular platform, boot into it and then have that one check for an >> extlinux.conf. > > There's probably 2 categories here: > - No extlinux support -> needs a new u-boot build > - extlinux support, but not the right env or boot scripts -> use > boot.scr/uEnv.txt to fixup the environment. Sounds reasonable. But keep in mind that there will be quite a significant transitioning phase. Also, I think for AArch64 we're pretty much set on EFI by now I think. > >> >> But whatever happens, it really has to be consistent across the board, >> and preferably still work with older downstream u-boot forks. >> >>>> - legacy platforms >>>> - Installers vs pre-built images >>> we should eb using installers where ever possible. >> >> Why? For most use cases the image based approach is nicer. > > People are going to want both. Are there different issues around > standardization for images? I think standardization of images is a lot easier, because you don't have to put board specific knowledge into the (generic) installer. IMHO for 32bit most of this is a lost cause - things are over and done. For AArch64 we'll get EFI and everything I've tested there so far works impressively well. > >> >> That said, for AArch64 with EFI we will provide both installers and >> images (and tools to create your own images). >> >>>> - What remaning OSS software needs to be ported to ARMv8 >>>> - Identifying common pain points Linaro could solve >> >> Testing of upstream kernels. Especially in non-defconfig configurations >> where everything is a module. IIUC Linaro has automated testing for a >> good number of boards. It would be great if they could also test the >> upstream kernel - maybe in allmodconfig style configurations? > > Really, it is Olof and Kevin Hilman doing most of the useful testing > here, but I believe they are only boot testing various defconfigs. > allmodconfig probably needs some work to actually boot on most > platforms. It certainly needs some tweaks to not enable BE build for > example. Well, there you have one more item on the list then :). Alex _______________________________________________ cross-distro mailing list cross-distro@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-distro
