> - fuller implementation with more features
Is that a good thing? Didn't we just have a long discussion eschewing
a heavy-handed, bulky hand-off block design in favor of more simple
and flexible structures? I think simplicity is key for this and the
bl_aux_params are trying to be about as simple
Hi François,
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 at 08:25, François Ozog
wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 at 01:07, Julius Werner wrote:
>
>> > - "bloblist" is a general term for concept of linked list and it's not
>> exactly U-boot implementation. The proposed solution will cause some degree
>> of changes in
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 at 01:07, Julius Werner wrote:
> > - "bloblist" is a general term for concept of linked list and it's not
> exactly U-boot implementation. The proposed solution will cause some degree
> of changes in all the participating projects. For backward compatibility
> issue, we have
> - "bloblist" is a general term for concept of linked list and it's not
> exactly U-boot implementation. The proposed solution will cause some degree
> of changes in all the participating projects. For backward compatibility
> issue, we have already though about it and proposed to have build
Please find my replies
To Julius's question:
Just to clarify: are you using "bloblist" as a general term for the concept of
a simple linked list of tagged data blobs, or to refer specifically to the
U-Boot implementation with that name? The existing TF-A implementation
(bl_aux_params) is
On Fri, Jul 09, 2021 at 09:05:09AM +0200, François Ozog wrote:
> Le ven. 9 juil. 2021 à 03:09, Julius Werner a écrit :
>
> > > Of course every project would like not to change...
> > >
> > > For TF-A I wonder whether it will/should in fact use devicetree if there
> > is a lot of complex data?
Le ven. 9 juil. 2021 à 03:09, Julius Werner a écrit :
> > Of course every project would like not to change...
> >
> > For TF-A I wonder whether it will/should in fact use devicetree if there
> is a lot of complex data? TBD, I suppose.
>
> Okay, sorry, now I'm a bit confused -- I thought the
> Of course every project would like not to change...
>
> For TF-A I wonder whether it will/should in fact use devicetree if there is a
> lot of complex data? TBD, I suppose.
Okay, sorry, now I'm a bit confused -- I thought the discussion in
this thread was about which parameter hand-off
Hi Julius,
On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 at 15:56, Julius Werner wrote:
> Thank you all for your feedback.
>>
>> It appears that in theory we are all happy with using bloblist with few
>> implementation details which needs to be taken care of during
>> implementation.
>>
>
> Just to clarify: are you using
>
> Thank you all for your feedback.
>
> It appears that in theory we are all happy with using bloblist with few
> implementation details which needs to be taken care of during
> implementation.
>
Just to clarify: are you using "bloblist" as a general term for the concept
of a simple linked list
On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 at 13:19, Manish Pandey2 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thank you all for your feedback.
>
> It appears that in theory we are all happy with using bloblist with few
> implementation details which needs to be taken care of during
> implementation.
>
> Few comments:
>
> > After all
Hi,
Thank you all for your feedback.
It appears that in theory we are all happy with using bloblist with few
implementation details which needs to be taken care of during implementation.
Few comments:
> After all discussions, I now support Simon proposal to use existing bloblist:
> it does
Le lun. 21 juin 2021 à 12:32, Alexander Graf a écrit :
>
> On 20.05.21 18:42, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Re Jeremy's comment:
> >> Using DT to pass platform info at this level is sort of crazy on an ACPI
> >> machine which won't have native DTs. Meaning there is an additional
> >> level
On 20.05.21 18:42, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi,
Re Jeremy's comment:
Using DT to pass platform info at this level is sort of crazy on an ACPI
machine which won't have native DTs. Meaning there is an additional
level of unnecessary indirection that needs to be converted back into a
format which can
+Loic from ST for 32bits perspective.
Le ven. 18 juin 2021 à 19:17, Tom Rini a écrit :
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 04:45:48PM -0700, raghu.ncst...@icloud.com wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > I also think it is incorrect to partition platforms into what
> u-boot/linux boot/embdedded systems do and what
Hi Raghu,
The thing is, devicetree is already used widely on ARM and it is hard to
see a good alternative. Using a C struct to describe something complicated
is a pain. Take a look at the x86 setup.bin stuff, or the binary block that
PowerPC used to pass to linux. Even the 'atag' tagged structure
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 04:45:48PM -0700, raghu.ncst...@icloud.com wrote:
[snip]
> I also think it is incorrect to partition platforms into what u-boot/linux
> boot/embdedded systems do and what “UEFI/private code” does. UEFI is a huge
> part of the ARM eco-system and is being used fairly
My take: Don’t force device tree on platforms. Lets not make decisions about
whether SDRAM is sufficient to expose device tree, that is assuming size may be
the only problem with device tree. Some platforms don’t want to use device tree
just like some platforms don’t want to use UUID’s(which
Le jeu. 17 juin 2021 à 21:38, Simon Glass a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 at 05:52, François Ozog
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 at 23:57, Manish Pandey2
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Everyone,
>>>
>>> I have tried to conclude the discussions we had in two of the TF-A tech
>>> forum
Hi,
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 at 05:52, François Ozog
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 at 23:57, Manish Pandey2
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Everyone,
>>
>> I have tried to conclude the discussions we had in two of the TF-A tech
>> forum sessions and on mailing list.
>>
>> The problem we are trying to solve is
On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 at 23:57, Manish Pandey2 wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I have tried to conclude the discussions we had in two of the TF-A tech
> forum sessions and on mailing list.
>
> The problem we are trying to solve is already solved in different projects
> in different ways, the purpose of
+ TF-A list that got dropped (again)!
Joanna
From: Joanna Farley
Date: Wednesday, 2 June 2021 at 15:29
To: Madhukar Pappireddy , Okash Khawaja
, Simon Glass
Cc: Harb Abdulhamid OS , Boot Architecture
Mailman List , Ed Stuber
, Arjun Khare ,
U-Boot Mailing List , Paul Isaac's
, Ron Minnich
Hi Everyone,
The Manish Pandy and Madhukar Pappireddy of the TF-A team are planning to host
another TF-A Tech Forum this Thursday to continue the live discussion.
Here is their agenda:
On tech forum this week, we would like to continue discussions on HOB list
design.
The topics which we
Hi,
Re Jeremy's comment:
> Using DT to pass platform info at this level is sort of crazy on an ACPI
> machine which won't have native DTs. Meaning there is an additional
> level of unnecessary indirection that needs to be converted back into a
> format which can be utilized by AML and other parts
Hi,
My interest in boot information passing is from the perspective of a
down-boot-chain consumer. From this perspective, I have the following
preferences:
1) Whatever information passing mechanism is used (e.g. HOB or DT), we use a
common object identification scheme that may be used with
Le mer. 19 mai 2021 à 03:58, Madhukar Pappireddy via TF-A <
t...@lists.trustedfirmware.org> a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I tried to summarize the discussions in the previous TF-A tech forum
> regarding the proposal to adopt Hand-off Blocks (HOBs) for passing
> information along the boot chain. I am
Le mer. 19 mai 2021 à 23:51, Jeremy Linton via TF-A <
t...@lists.trustedfirmware.org> a écrit :
> On 5/18/21 8:59 PM, Madhukar Pappireddy via TF-A wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I tried to summarize the discussions in the previous TF-A tech forum
> regarding the proposal to adopt Hand-off Blocks (HOBs)
On 5/18/21 8:59 PM, Madhukar Pappireddy via TF-A wrote:
Hi,
I tried to summarize the discussions in the previous TF-A tech forum regarding
the proposal to adopt Hand-off Blocks (HOBs) for passing information along the
boot chain. I am certain I could not capture all suggestions/concerns
Hi,
I tried to summarize the discussions in the previous TF-A tech forum regarding
the proposal to adopt Hand-off Blocks (HOBs) for passing information along the
boot chain. I am certain I could not capture all suggestions/concerns brought
up during the call. I apologize if I missed and/or
Looks t...@lists.trustedfirmware.org got dropped. Adding that back in.
Joanna
On 19/05/2021, 15:33, "Joanna Farley" wrote:
It’s a bit short notice to host another TF-A Tech-forum call on this
tomorrow for a live debate as well as Manish who led the call last time is not
available this
It’s a bit short notice to host another TF-A Tech-forum call on this tomorrow
for a live debate as well as Manish who led the call last time is not available
this week. So I propose our next TF-A Techforum session on Thursday 3rd June at
4pm BST and between now and then email discussions can
Apologies I failed with the recording. Manish/Madhu will reply early next week
with the slides and some notes to help with a follow up session which we hope
to hold this Thursday. Invite and agenda will also be sent out early next week.
Thanks
Joanna
On 14/05/2021, 13:30, "TF-A on behalf of
Hi,
Do we have slides and video from last week's discussion?
Thanks,
Okash
On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 11:52 PM Simon Glass via TF-A
wrote:
>
> Hi Harb,
>
> Thanks for the idea. I am still not completely sure what benefit UUID
> provides to an open project. I'd like to propose something
Hey Folks,
We wanted to put out a middle-ground proposal to help guide the discussion on
the call tomorrow.
A proposal that we have been discussing offline involves reserving a single tag
ID for the purpose of construction UEFI PI HOB List structure, and that tag
would be used to identify a
Hi Harb,
Thanks for the idea. I am still not completely sure what benefit UUID
provides to an open project. I'd like to propose something different, more
in the spirit of open collaboration. I also worry that the word 'standard'
seems to be a synonym for UUIDs, UEFI, etc., i.e.
Hi All,
Please find invite for next TF-A Tech Forum session to continue our discussions
on HOB implementation, feel free to forward it to others.
The next TF-A Tech Forum is scheduled for Thu 6th May 2021 16:00 – 17:00 (BST).
Agenda:
* Discussion Session: Static and Dynamic
Hi,
I promised to send my summary of Trusted Substrate architecture council
call on HOBs, here it is:
Topics where there seem to be consensus
- Scope include diverse firmware flows (U-Boot/SPL, TFA, CoreBoot…) on
difference architectures (Arm, RiscV)
- Definitions: The Hand Over
Manish, Simon,
* The U-boot bloblist mentioned by Simon is conceptually similar to what
TF-A is using, if there is consensus of using bloblist/taglist then TF-A tag
list may be enhanced to take best of both the implementations.
Honestly, “conceptually similar” is not good enough and feels
> These structures we are talking about may not be defined by the SiP, and
just saying we have SiP specific tags is not good enough.
There is enough room in 64-bits to create separate tag spaces for every
kind of category you can think of. (In fact, we could also just let every
vendor allocate
> From: Simon Glass
> Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2021 06:19:08 +1200
>
> Here are a few thoughts on UUIDs.
> Why a UUID/GUID is probably not the answer
>
> sjg, 30-Mar-21
> Code is for humans
>
> Code should be readable, so far as possible.
>
> This is not readable:
>
> #define
Hi Harb,
On Fri, 9 Apr 2021 at 05:24, Harb Abdulhamid OS <
abdulha...@os.amperecomputing.com> wrote:
> Manish, Simon,
>
>- The U-boot bloblist mentioned by Simon is conceptually similar to
>what TF-A is using, if there is consensus of using bloblist/taglist then
>TF-A tag list may
Hi
here is the meeting recording:
https://linaro-org.zoom.us/rec/share/zjfHeMIumkJhirLCVQYTHR6ftaqyWvF_0klgQnHTqzgA5Wav0qOO8n7SAM0yj-Hg.mLyFkVJNB1vDKqw_
Passcode: IPn+5q%z
I am really sorry about the confusion related to the meeting time. I have
now understood: the Collaborate portal uses a
Hi,
From TF-A project point of view, we prefer to use existing mechanism to pass
parameters across boot stages using linked list of tagged elements (as
suggested by Julius). It has support for both generic and SiP-specific tags.
Having said that, it does not stop partners to introduce new
Hi Julius,
>> that doesn't care that much about boot speed, why wouldn't you just use FDT?
[RK]I think you answered this question yourself. “there may not be a
one-size-fits-all solution”. Can we use it? Yes! Do we want to use it, probably
not, in a given context. UEFI HOB I think would
Hi Raghu,
> It appears there are opinions you carry around UUID being complicated,
> bloated, code being an eyesore, parsing these lists early with MMU/Caches
> disabled, calculating checksums etc. While there is certainly a LOT of
> truth to those statements, these concerns need to be put into
Hi Grant,
On Mon, 29 Mar 2021 at 23:19, Grant Likely wrote:
>
>
>
> On 29/03/2021 08:42, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Raghu,
> >
> > On Sat, 27 Mar 2021 at 03:59, wrote:
> >
> >> Julius, Simon,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> It appears there are opinions you carry around UUID being complicated,
> >>
On 29/03/2021 08:42, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Raghu,
>
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2021 at 03:59, wrote:
>
>> Julius, Simon,
>>
>>
>>
>> It appears there are opinions you carry around UUID being complicated,
>> bloated, code being an eyesore, parsing these lists early with
MMU/Caches
>> disabled,
Hi Raghu,
On Sat, 27 Mar 2021 at 03:59, wrote:
> Julius, Simon,
>
>
>
> It appears there are opinions you carry around UUID being complicated,
> bloated, code being an eyesore, parsing these lists early with MMU/Caches
> disabled, calculating checksums etc. While there is certainly a LOT of
>
Julius, Simon,
It appears there are opinions you carry around UUID being complicated, bloated,
code being an eyesore, parsing these lists early with MMU/Caches disabled,
calculating checksums etc. While there is certainly a LOT of truth to those
statements, these concerns need to be put
Just want to point out that TF-A currently already supports a (very simple)
mechanism like this:
https://review.trustedfirmware.org/plugins/gitiles/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a/+/refs/heads/master/include/export/lib/bl_aux_params/bl_aux_params_exp.h
Hi Harb,
On Wed, 24 Mar 2021 at 11:39, Harb Abdulhamid OS <
abdulha...@os.amperecomputing.com> wrote:
> Hello Folks,
>
> Appreciate the feedback and replies on this. Glad to see that there is
> interest in this topic.
>
>
>
> I try to address the comments/feedback from Francois and Simon
51 matches
Mail list logo
