On 18/05/2018 20:49, Dong Wei wrote:
Yes, I am referring to the upcoming SBBR v1.1 content. We changed the reference
to PSCI back to 1.0 because that version is what we need for the MP support,
1.1 is also fine but not the minimal requirement.
Ah, that makes sense. I'll take a look next week
Yes, I am referring to the upcoming SBBR v1.1 content. We changed the reference
to PSCI back to 1.0 because that version is what we need for the MP support,
1.1 is also fine but not the minimal requirement.
- DW
-
-Original Message-
From: Grant Likely
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2018 12:47 PM
This part has been changed in the SBBR spec as we do expect server SoC to
support EL3 so we removed the non-PSCI mechanism. Also the PSCI Spec reference
is 1.0:
UEFI is defined as a uniprocessor specification that only uses a single CPU
core for booting.
Platforms providing EL3 must implement t
Hi Dong,
Thanks for the comments. Replies below...
On 18/05/2018 19:01, Dong Wei wrote:
This part has been changed in the SBBR spec as we do expect server SoC to
support EL3 so we removed the non-PSCI mechanism. Also the PSCI Spec reference
is 1.0:
Can you double check that please? The copy
On 18/05/2018 18:08, Mark Brown wrote:
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 06:04:11PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
My bikeshed now has a sign that reads:
+As stated above, EBBR systems must not provide both ACPI
+and Devicetree tables at the same time.
+Systems that support both interfaces must provide a
On 18/05/2018 17:45, Mark Brown wrote:
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 05:28:10PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
+Devicetree tables at the same time. Platforms that want to offer
+both ACPI and Devicetree solutions must implement a boot time
+mechanism to select one or the other, before the OS Loa
On 18/05/2018 16:39, Daniel Thompson wrote:
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 02:06:10PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
Scope doesn't need it's own chapter. Move it into the 'About This
Document' chapter. Also expand the text to place this document in
relation to the existing SBBR document. SBBR is the strict
On 18/05/2018 16:28, Daniel Thompson wrote:
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 02:06:09PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
Be specific that an EBBR platform must provide either ACPI or Devicetree
data in the EFI configuration table, but not both. Platforms are allowed
to support both ACPI & DT booting as a confi
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 02:06:11PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
> Document the requirements for secure firmware to implement PSCI,
> particularly in regard to multiprocessor CPU startup protocol. PSCI is
> by far the preferred solution, but make allowance for the other existing
> methods.
>
> Signed
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 02:06:12PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
> We don't have a CI generating PDFs yet, but interested parties can go
> and read the spec in raw form. Mention that in the README.
>
> Cc: William Mills
> Signed-off-by: Grant Likely
Reviewed-by: Daniel Thompson
> ---
> README.r
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 02:06:10PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
> Scope doesn't need it's own chapter. Move it into the 'About This
> Document' chapter. Also expand the text to place this document in
> relation to the existing SBBR document. SBBR is the stricter of the two,
> so EBBR can be considere
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 02:06:09PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
> Be specific that an EBBR platform must provide either ACPI or Devicetree
> data in the EFI configuration table, but not both. Platforms are allowed
> to support both ACPI & DT booting as a configuration option, but only
> one interface
On 18/05/2018 14:18, Tom Rini wrote:
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 02:06:08PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
Use reStructuredText citation markup to capture all referenced
documents. Sphinx will take care of creating a table of references at
the end of the document.
Fixes #6
Signed-off-by: Grant Likely
Document the requirements for secure firmware to implement PSCI,
particularly in regard to multiprocessor CPU startup protocol. PSCI is
by far the preferred solution, but make allowance for the other existing
methods.
Signed-off-by: Grant Likely
---
source/ebbr.rst | 25 +
We don't have a CI generating PDFs yet, but interested parties can go
and read the spec in raw form. Mention that in the README.
Cc: William Mills
Signed-off-by: Grant Likely
---
README.rst | 11 +++
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
diff --git a/README.rst b/README.rst
index 67c7e85..8
Scope doesn't need it's own chapter. Move it into the 'About This
Document' chapter. Also expand the text to place this document in
relation to the existing SBBR document. SBBR is the stricter of the two,
so EBBR can be considered a superset. (ie. all SBBR compliant platforms
are also EBBR complian
Be specific that an EBBR platform must provide either ACPI or Devicetree
data in the EFI configuration table, but not both. Platforms are allowed
to support both ACPI & DT booting as a configuration option, but only
one interface can be presented to the OS at a time.
Also add references to the ACP
Use reStructuredText citation markup to capture all referenced
documents. Sphinx will take care of creating a table of references at
the end of the document.
Fixes #6
Signed-off-by: Grant Likely
---
source/ebbr.rst | 53 +++--
1 file changed, 19 in
Some of the glossary terms got split across lines which put half the
term in the description instead of the entry name. Fix the 'AArch64
State' and 'EFI Loaded Image' entries.
Signed-off-by: Grant Likely
---
source/ebbr.rst | 8
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --gi
On 18/05/2018 13:05, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
On 18 May 2018 at 13:49, Grant Likely wrote:
On 18/05/2018 12:40, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
On 18 May 2018 at 13:37, Grant Likely wrote:
On 18/05/2018 12:13, Andre Przywara wrote:
Hi,
On 18/05/18 12:04, Grant Likely wrote:
I'm adding some EBBR
On 18 May 2018 at 13:49, Grant Likely wrote:
> On 18/05/2018 12:40, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>
>> On 18 May 2018 at 13:37, Grant Likely wrote:
>>>
>>> On 18/05/2018 12:13, Andre Przywara wrote:
Hi,
On 18/05/18 12:04, Grant Likely wrote:
>
>
> I'm adding some EBB
On 18/05/2018 12:40, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
On 18 May 2018 at 13:37, Grant Likely wrote:
On 18/05/2018 12:13, Andre Przywara wrote:
Hi,
On 18/05/18 12:04, Grant Likely wrote:
I'm adding some EBBR text around the CPU state at boot and I've lost
track of what is being done for multicore bring
On 18 May 2018 at 13:37, Grant Likely wrote:
> On 18/05/2018 12:13, Andre Przywara wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 18/05/18 12:04, Grant Likely wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm adding some EBBR text around the CPU state at boot and I've lost
>>> track of what is being done for multicore bringup. What is the current
>
On 18/05/2018 12:13, Andre Przywara wrote:
Hi,
On 18/05/18 12:04, Grant Likely wrote:
I'm adding some EBBR text around the CPU state at boot and I've lost
track of what is being done for multicore bringup. What is the current
state-of-the-art for multicore boot protocol when PSCI isn't availabl
Hi,
On 18/05/18 12:04, Grant Likely wrote:
> I'm adding some EBBR text around the CPU state at boot and I've lost
> track of what is being done for multicore bringup. What is the current
> state-of-the-art for multicore boot protocol when PSCI isn't available?
It is my understanding that for arm6
I'm adding some EBBR text around the CPU state at boot and I've lost
track of what is being done for multicore bringup. What is the current
state-of-the-art for multicore boot protocol when PSCI isn't available?
SBBR allows for the MP Boot Protocol; with the intend of phasing it out:
https://acp
26 matches
Mail list logo
