On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 02:23:23PM +0100, Paul Menzel wrote: > Dear Wim, dear Daniel, > > > First, thank you for including all parties in the discussion. > Am 04.12.20 um 13:52 schrieb Wim Vervoorn: > > > I agree with you. Using an existing standard is better than inventing > > a new one in this case. I think using the coreboot logging is a good > > idea as there is indeed a lot of support already available and it is > > lightweight and simple. > In my opinion coreboot’s format is lacking, that it does not record the > timestamp, and the log level is not stored as metadata, but (in coreboot) > only used to decide if to print the message or not. > > I agree with you, that an existing standard should be used, and in my > opinion it’s Linux message format. That is most widely supported, and > existing tools could then also work with pre-Linux messages. > > Sean Hudson from Mentor Graphics presented that idea at Embedded Linux > Conference Europe 2016 [1]. No idea, if anything came out of that effort. > (Unfortunately, I couldn’t find an email. Does somebody have contacts at > Mentor to find out, how to reach him?)
I believe the main thing that came out of this was the reminder that there was an even older attempt by U-Boot to have such a mechanism, and that at the time getting the work accepted in Linux faced some hurdles or another. That said, I too agree with taking what's already a de facto standard, the coreboot logging, and expand on it as needed. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
