Bill
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 at 21:01 William Mills wrote:
>
> > I think it's likely useful to fog/edge but not critical, it will
> > depend a lot on the size of the device. In the arm space it'll be
> > either EBBR or SBBR/SBSA, either way standardisation will be good.
> >
> >
> >
On Sat, Jun 09, 2018 at 10:21:58AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > + Options:
> > +
> > + - Require ESP and SFPs to be separate
> > + - Should a common SFP GUID be defined so a single image can hold
> > firmware
> > + for multiple platforms?
> > + - Don't have to repartition
On Fri, Jun 08, 2018 at 08:57:52PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
> Add some more detail on how to handle system firmware. I'm still
> undecided about this, so this patch is more of an RFC discussion than a
> serious patch. Please comment.
>
> Cc: Daniel Thompson
> Signed-off-by: Grant Likely
> ---
Agree
- DW
-
-Original Message-
From: Olof Johansson
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 10:58 AM
To: Dong Wei
Cc: David Rusling ; wmi...@ti.com;
boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org; arm.ebbr-discuss
Subject: Re: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] EBBR - Fog, Edge and Device
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:16
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:16 AM, Dong Wei wrote:
> There may be a need for making EBBR more aware to the community.
>
> I ran into a case at Computex last week. Ambedded makes storage servers using
> Marvell SoCs. Even though Marvell provides UEFI code for the SoC, Ambedded
> chose to do the
There may be a need for making EBBR more aware to the community.
I ran into a case at Computex last week. Ambedded makes storage servers using
Marvell SoCs. Even though Marvell provides UEFI code for the SoC, Ambedded
chose to do the uboot anyways.
* DW
From:
