> After some more community discussion about what's going on here, a proposal:
Can you link to that discussion? I feel like I'm missing most of
what's going on here.
In general, I can second what Patrick and Nico said: the notion of
running coreboot "after" BL2 doesn't make any sense, because
# 20 October 2021 - coreboot Leadership
##Attendees:
Felix Singer, David Hendricks, Arthur, Werner, Piotr, Lean Sheng Tan,
Marshall, Jason Glenesk, Jay Talbott, Matt DeVillier, Patrick Georgi, Tim
Crawford, Martin, Stefan, Felix Held
## Agenda:
* [patrick g] “Verified+1” permissions on
On 20.10.21 20:22, Martin Roth via coreboot wrote:
> Accidentally responded off the mailing list initally. :-/
>
>
> Oct 20, 2021, 08:07 by matt.devill...@gmail.com:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 8:53 AM Andy Pont wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Nico wrote...
> How about we set up some guidelines how to
Accidentally responded off the mailing list initally. :-/
Oct 20, 2021, 08:07 by matt.devill...@gmail.com:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 8:53 AM Andy Pont wrote:
>
>>
>> Nico wrote...
>> >> How about we set up some guidelines how to proceed when adding support
>> >> for a new platform that
On 20.10.21 16:07, Matt DeVillier wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 8:53 AM Andy Pont wrote:
>>
>> Nico wrote...
How about we set up some guidelines how to proceed when adding support
for a new platform that requires any blobs? My vague idea is as follows:
Before the very first
Hi Andy,
On 20.10.21 15:53, Andy Pont wrote:
> Nico wrote...
>>> How about we set up some guidelines how to proceed when adding support
>>> for a new platform that requires any blobs? My vague idea is as
>>> follows:
>>> Before the very first commit for such a new platform can be merged, a
>>>
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 8:53 AM Andy Pont wrote:
>
> Nico wrote...
> >> How about we set up some guidelines how to proceed when adding support
> >> for a new platform that requires any blobs? My vague idea is as follows:
> >> Before the very first commit for such a new platform can be merged,
Nico wrote...
How about we set up some guidelines how to proceed when adding support
for a new platform that requires any blobs? My vague idea is as follows:
Before the very first commit for such a new platform can be merged, a
set of predefined, blob related questions (to be discussed)
> How about we set up some guidelines how to proceed when adding support
> for a new platform that requires any blobs? My vague idea is as follows:
> Before the very first commit for such a new platform can be merged, a
> set of predefined, blob related questions (to be discussed) should be
>
Hi coreboot community,
a recent yet-another-blob occurrence reminded me that I wanted to
write about the matter for a long time.
Every few months, it seems (if not, more often), a new blob is
introduced to coreboot. Alas, this is often hidden to the last
minute, creating unnecessary friction and
Hello Sukanto,
welcome to the coreboot mailinglist!
I'm not an expert on the arm64 port of coreboot. But generally the
idea of coreboot is that it starts with the first instructions that
are loaded from flash (or the reset vector, on platforms where its
located in flash).
On 20.10.21 11:04,
Am Mi., 20. Okt. 2021 um 11:04 Uhr schrieb Sukanto Ghosh via coreboot <
coreboot@coreboot.org>:
> We have couple of queries regarding the current support and future
> direction of arm64 port of coreboot:
>
>
>1. Does the current coreboot/arm64 execute post BL31 stage (assuming a
>separate
Am Mi., 20. Okt. 2021 um 11:04 Uhr schrieb Sukanto Ghosh via coreboot <
coreboot@coreboot.org>:
> Does the current coreboot/arm64 port allow executing only the ramstage of
> coreboot (say as a means of reducing the coreboot binary footprint) ?
>
I think that's really the gist of your inquiry, so
Hi Everyone,
We have couple of queries regarding the current support and future direction of
arm64 port of coreboot:
1. Does the current coreboot/arm64 execute post BL31 stage (assuming a
separate BL2 stage loads BL31 and coreboot) ?
* If no, would coreboot community be willing to
Would the DT/MT board be expected to work?
On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 4:04 PM Matt B wrote:
> A question about Optiplex 7010 motherboards:
>
> It appears (at least to me) that the DT and MT variants of the 7010 use
> the same motherboard, different from the SFF.
> The docs specify the SFF version.
15 matches
Mail list logo
