On 25/09/2018 16:50, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 at 16:45, Grant Likely wrote:
On 24/09/2018 16:22, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 at 15:54, Grant Likely wrote:
Fill out the requirements for AArch32 systems. Not much needs to be
specified here other than the differ
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 03:54:03PM +0200, Grant Likely wrote:
> After face to face meeting at Linaro Connect YVR18, the decision was
> made to keep variable services very simple. Either fully provide
> SetVariable/GetVariable during runtime services, or don't provide them
> at all.
>
> This is an
Thanks much David!
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 13, 2018, at 11:26 PM, David Rusling wrote:
>
> See here for a shoutout to EBBR and U-Boot...
>
> David
> --
> David A Rusling
> CTO, Linaro
> https://linaro.org
> ___
> Arm.ebbr-discuss mailing list
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 9:51 AM Ard Biesheuvel
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 at 16:45, Grant Likely wrote:
> >
> > On 24/09/2018 16:22, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 at 15:54, Grant Likely wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Fill out the requirements for AArch32 systems. Not much needs to be
On 25/09/2018 13:57, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 2:54 PM Grant Likely wrote:
UEFI spec is adding ability for all runtime services to return
EFI_UNSUPPORTED if not implemented. Use this return code instead of
EFI_DEVICE_ERROR.
Do we have a ticket number, errata or similar th
> Am 25.09.2018 um 16:50 schrieb Ard Biesheuvel :
>
>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 at 16:45, Grant Likely wrote:
>>
>>> On 24/09/2018 16:22, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 at 15:54, Grant Likely wrote:
Fill out the requirements for AArch32 systems. Not much needs to be
On 25/09/2018 10:43, Udit Kumar wrote:
Hi Grant
-Original Message-
From: arm.ebbr-discuss-boun...@arm.com On Behalf Of Grant Likely
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 7:24 PM
To: boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org; arm.ebbr-disc...@arm.com
Cc: n...@arm.com
Subject: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] [PA
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 8:55 AM Grant Likely wrote:
>
> Fill out the requirements for AArch32 systems. Not much needs to be
> specified here other than the different privilege modes defined by
> ARMv7 and below.
>
> Resolves: #15
> Signed-off-by: Grant Likely
> ---
> @@ -29,19 +29,27 @@ The syst
On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 at 16:45, Grant Likely wrote:
>
> On 24/09/2018 16:22, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 at 15:54, Grant Likely wrote:
> >>
> >> Fill out the requirements for AArch32 systems. Not much needs to be
> >> specified here other than the different privilege modes defined
On 25/09/2018 14:02, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 2:54 PM Grant Likely wrote:
The UEFI spec already covers the requirements on the runtime memory map.
No need to have a whole section on it here.
Is it worth just referring to the relevant section in the UEFI spec?
I'm kind
On 24/09/2018 16:22, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 at 15:54, Grant Likely wrote:
Fill out the requirements for AArch32 systems. Not much needs to be
specified here other than the different privilege modes defined by
ARMv7 and below.
Resolves: #15
Signed-off-by: Grant Likely
---
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 2:54 PM Grant Likely wrote:
>
> The UEFI spec already covers the requirements on the runtime memory map.
> No need to have a whole section on it here.
Is it worth just referring to the relevant section in the UEFI spec?
> Signed-off-by: Grant Likely
Reviewed-by: Peter Ro
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 2:54 PM Grant Likely wrote:
>
> The UEFI spec already specifies the image format. No need to specify in
> EBBR.
>
> Signed-off-by: Grant Likely
Reviewed-by: Peter Robinson
> ---
> source/chapter2-uefi.rst | 6 --
> 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/sour
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 2:54 PM Grant Likely wrote:
>
> UEFI spec is adding ability for all runtime services to return
> EFI_UNSUPPORTED if not implemented. Use this return code instead of
> EFI_DEVICE_ERROR.
Do we have a ticket number, errata or similar that we can reference here?
> Resolves: #
Hi Grant
>+Firmware shall return EFI_UNSUPPORTED for any call to GetVariable(),
>+GetNextVariableName() and SetVariable().
>+Firmware shall not emulated non-volatile variables using volatile RAM cache.
IMHO, on such platforms GetVariable service should be allowed, whereas
SetVariable
can return
Hi Grant
> -Original Message-
> From: arm.ebbr-discuss-boun...@arm.com boun...@arm.com> On Behalf Of Grant Likely
> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 7:24 PM
> To: boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org; arm.ebbr-disc...@arm.com
> Cc: n...@arm.com
> Subject: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] [PATCH 5/7] Ref
Hello,
Can we add a discussion in upcoming meetings about the participation
of SMMU in the booting procedure?
In the past there's been a number of proposals on how to mitigate
attacks, were a rogue PCI card is inserted into the system.
Some of them include shutting down external DMA ports until t
Hi Grant
> -Original Message-
> From: arm.ebbr-discuss-boun...@arm.com boun...@arm.com> On Behalf Of Grant Likely
> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 7:24 PM
> To: boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org; arm.ebbr-disc...@arm.com
> Cc: n...@arm.com
> Subject: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] [PATCH 4/7] Get
18 matches
Mail list logo