On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:53:06PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Tom, > > [sorry I wrote this yesterday and didn't send] > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > [take 2 for me, gmail defaults to reply not reply-all] > > > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 11:48 PM, Simon Glass <[email protected]> wrote: > [..] > >> Generic board is also a big change, but since it is sort-of parallel > >> to existing code and only turned on on a board-by-board basis the risk > >> is lower - it just need some weeks of review time IMO. > > > > Sounds good, thanks! > > And generic board is in also now, which is a big step. Thanks for all > your effort on that. > > I am about to rev the verified boot series, and FIT image series base > on feedback. > > Also, what is happening on the TPM side? I think we have all the > pieces for making the TPM work properly in U-Boot, as previously > discussed. Along with verified boot we have a pretty solid > implementation now.
So, I really want Wolfgang to weigh in on the verified boot side of things (and I need to review it harder and think myself). On a related note, have you seen http://prosauce.org/blog/2013/2/11/embedded-trust-p2-u-boot-secured-boot.html yet? It almost looks like easy enough that I could get that wired up here but is also another real life case we should take into account and make easy enough to handle and support in mainline. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
