On 09/07/2018 19:47, Dong Wei wrote:
Grant,
We don't need to change anything in the UEFI Spec. All we need to do is to
request the addition of /Firmware directory in the registry. You can send the
request to the USWG chair. There is a link on that page to send the request.
Okay, I'll do that.
Created a github issue to track the topic:
https://github.com/ARM-software/ebbr/issues/25
g.
Vendors do have the freedom to choose a name, but the name needs to be
requested to the USWG chair so that USWG can check whether the name collides
with any existing names and whether the request is legit. Sometimes vendors may
need to change the proposed name if it collides with the existing one.
- DW
-
-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Likely
Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 11:17 AM
To: Dong Wei <dong....@arm.com>; boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org; arm.ebbr-discuss
<arm.ebbr-disc...@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] EBBR v0.6-pre1 Released
On 09/07/2018 18:54, Dong Wei wrote:
Grant,
In section 4.2, the /Firmware directory is mentioned. What are the reasons why
this new hierarchy of directories are created? Can we not use the existing /EFI
hierarchy as shown at http://www.uefi.org/registry? I may have missed the
rational when discussed.
Because it doesn't contain EFI executables, or have anything to do with the
UEFI spec at all. A different hierarchy was selected because it insulates
firmware implementation details from the hierarchy used by an OS to install EFI
binaries.
If we do need to create a new /Firmware hierarchy, we need to register that
with the UEFI Forum as the UEFI Forum owns the ESP name space to avoid
conflicts. EBBR cannot single-handedly create new hierarchy.
I'm okay with that. Care to propose suitable language for the EFI spec?
Also, each SoC vendor would need to make request to the UEFI Forum to get their
vendor subdirectories under /Firmware as well.
Is that true? I lifted the description of the /FIRMWARE directory
straight from UEFI section 13.3.1.3:
"Applications that are loaded by other applications or drivers are
not required to be stored in any specific location in the EFI system
partition. The choice of the subdirectory name is up to the vendor,
but all vendors must pick names that do not collide with any other
vendor’s subdirectory name. This applies to system manufacturers,
operating system vendors, BIOS vendors, and third party tool
vendors, or any other vendor that wishes to install files on an EFI
system partition."
Seems to me that the vendors have freedom to chose a name.
Cheers,
g.
- DW
-
-----Original Message-----
From: arm.ebbr-discuss-boun...@arm.com <arm.ebbr-discuss-boun...@arm.com> On
Behalf Of Grant Likely
Sent: Friday, July 6, 2018 12:13 PM
To: boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org; arm.ebbr-discuss
<arm.ebbr-disc...@arm.com>
Subject: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] EBBR v0.6-pre1 Released
I've tagged the prerelease in preparation for a wider v0.6 RFC release next
week. Please review and comment:
https://github.com/glikely/ebbr/releases/tag/v0.6-pre1
(I've linked to the copy on my personal ebbr fork because I'm having trouble
getting Travis-ci to deploy to the official repo. It will take a bit of effort
to work out what is wrong)
g.
_______________________________________________
Arm.ebbr-discuss mailing list
arm.ebbr-disc...@arm.com
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are
confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient,
please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any
other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any
medium. Thank you.
_______________________________________________
boot-architecture mailing list
boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture
