There is currently an issue with exclusivity for software with the same use cases (e.g., PROVIDES), and potential confusion for software with similar use cases. This is especially problematic for the Arm boot flow, as there are a number of pieces of competing software/firmware that stack on top of each other, and this boot flow gives them similar names. I believe it is a problem on x86 and others as well.
The boot flow in a typical Arm system looks something like: SCP -> TF-A -> EDK2 -> grub However each one of those pieces _could_ be interchanged with an alternative. For example, u-boot instead of tianocore, systemd-boot instead of grub (or neither if booting via u-boot), etc. Grouping like software, looks to me like: Control Processor Firmware: SCP MCP Secure world Firmware: TF-A TF-M Standalone-MM Non-secure world firmware: EDK2/tianocore u-boot Boot manager: grub systemd-boot efibootmgr The current PROVIDES are: u-boot PROVIDES = "virtual/bootloader" that's it... My suggestions are roughly the names of the categories above. So: SCP/MCP = "virtual/control-processor-firmware" TFA/TFM = "virtual/secure-firmware" EDK2/u-boot = "virtual/boot-firmware" grub, etc = "virtual/boot-manager" These are different from what is there now for u-boot. So, I don't think there should be a name collision with legacy layers. If these pieces were uniquely in meta-arm, I could easily address them there. However, given that some are in oe-core (and potentially in other places), I would like some feedback on the PROVIDES names and an agreement on them (if possible) to help address this issue. Thanks, Jon
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#164329): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/164329 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/90442900/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
