On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 1:29 -0700, ron minnich wrote:
>I'd rather not take HOB as a given without considering alternatives.
>It's a very 1990s design.
Device tree is also a very early 90s design for that matter. If we are talking
about clean slate design, how about something actually new and
actually isn't device tree a 1980s design :-)
anyway, as long as we can hit the things I care so much about,
self describing
alignment independent
endian independent
names not magic numbers (I mean, you want to put a UUID in there too,
fine, but I doubt a human-readable string will kill us on
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 11:25 AM François Ozog
wrote:
>
>
> "packed" at least works otherwise no network protocol would be operating
> as expected.
>
that is a very common misconception. C code for networks existed for
decades before packed existed.
packed does not exist in plan 9 compilers to
On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 at 19:42, ron minnich wrote:
> HOBS are "bad'.
>
> several reasons.
> 1. They depend on the nature of the C compiler and require use of a keyword
> ("packed") known to be an issue.
> (i.e. there are alignment and padding requirements that not all
> compilers handle the
HOBS are "bad'.
several reasons.
1. They depend on the nature of the C compiler and require use of a keyword
("packed") known to be an issue.
(i.e. there are alignment and padding requirements that not all
compilers handle the same way for all versions)
In fact, interestingly, a recent
I won't be able to make the time in 15mn (I misread the Gcalendar's TZ and
thought it was at 1pm my time) , but I'd love to be invited to future
meetings; this 7pm CEST time might be problematic for me some weeks where I
have other commitments, but I'll do my best to attend :-)
On Thu, 15 Apr
On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 at 17:21, ron minnich wrote:
> Loic, it is wonderful to have you here. I think in the OCP OSF call today
> (to which you are now invited, if you want; let me know -- same applies to
> everyone here who's interested in open compute platform open *system*
> firmware standard)
>
Hi Ron,
Apologies; I clearly hadn't read enough. I just recently joined the OCP-OSF
project's mailing-list as I wasn't aware of the effort before, and had only
read the welcome web page. I've now read through the Governance, Charter
and Transition schedule docs, and also saw the Pilot's draft
I do wonder if you have read the OSF doc. That was a lot of work over a
near 3 year period, and your doc looks like the very early drafts of that
doc. I think it would pay to take a look.
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 10:52 PM Loïc Minier
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Sorry for the late reply, here's a draft the
You can see how quickly this gets complicated. It is why we tried to
keep the OSF requirements as simple as possible.
The requirements, in their most basic form, allow owners of systems to
modify firmware, install it, and share it. Open source is not
required.
But for customers to install
On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 at 19:53, ron minnich wrote:
> You can see how quickly this gets complicated. It is why we tried to
> keep the OSF requirements as simple as possible.
>
> The requirements, in their most basic form, allow owners of systems to
> modify firmware, install it, and share it. Open
11 matches
Mail list logo
