On 13.08.21 13:23, Leif Lindholm wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 12:58:26 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 13.08.21 11:54, Leif Lindholm wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 08:18:14 +0200, François Ozog wrote:
This:
https://linuxfoundation.org/press-release/facebook-google-isovalent-microsoft-and
On 13.08.21 11:54, Leif Lindholm wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 08:18:14 +0200, François Ozog wrote:
This:
https://linuxfoundation.org/press-release/facebook-google-isovalent-microsoft-and-netflix-launch-ebpf-foundation-as-part-of-the-linux-foundation
Following earlier addition of eBPF in Win
On 20.05.21 18:42, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi,
Re Jeremy's comment:
Using DT to pass platform info at this level is sort of crazy on an ACPI
machine which won't have native DTs. Meaning there is an additional
level of unnecessary indirection that needs to be converted back into a
format which can
On 07.12.20 17:56, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
On 07.12.20 17:38, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 07.12.20 17:17, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
On 07.12.20 16:24, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 07.12.20 16:07, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
On 07.12.20 14:43, Grant Likely wrote:
I have a conflict this week and
On 07.12.20 17:17, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
On 07.12.20 16:24, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 07.12.20 16:07, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
On 07.12.20 14:43, Grant Likely wrote:
I have a conflict this week and need to cancel. I propose pushing out
to next week (Dec 14th), and cancelling the
On 07.12.20 16:07, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
On 07.12.20 14:43, Grant Likely wrote:
I have a conflict this week and need to cancel. I propose pushing out to next
week (Dec 14th), and cancelling the meeting on the 21st when many people will
be on holiday anyway. Let me know if you want anythi
On 08.07.19 12:13, Daniel Kiper wrote:
Sorry for late reply but I am busy...
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 11:42:06AM +0100, Leif Lindholm wrote:
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 12:17:54PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 28.06.19 12:03, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
I would be interested in joining. I hope
On 28.06.19 12:03, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
I would be interested in joining. I hope that for the plugfest no ELC
conference ticket will be needed.
The easiest option for that would be to submit a talk to ELC-E. IIRC the
CfP is still open until July 1st. You could easily give one on "Prog
> Am 31.05.2019 um 17:18 schrieb Ilias Apalodimas :
>
> Hi Tom,
>> On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 11:05:20AM -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 02:40:32PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 02:04:23PM +0300, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
>>
>> The tl;dr purpose
onsibility for updates.
>>>>> So it is perfectly OK to have a Linux software agent receive an update
>>>>> by any mean (network, USB, serial...). The agent will pack this (or
>>>>> those) into a capsule and push it to UEFI implementation.
>>>&g
On 26.04.19 15:01, Francois Ozog wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 at 14:45, Bryan O'Donoghue
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 26/04/2019 12:01, Francois Ozog wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 at 12:36, Bryan O'Donoghue
>>> mailto:bryan.odonog...@linaro.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 26/04/2019 10:29, Ilias
On 23.04.19 17:18, Grant Likely wrote:
> Hi Bill and Peter,
>
> [cc'ing boot-architecture to trawl for additional volunteers]
>
> As discussed during EBBR monthly call today, we should have an EBBR
> plugfest at ELC and/or ELC-E this year with the goal of working out
> compatibility issues betwe
On 20.12.18 18:39, Grant Likely wrote:
> Instead of masking out GetVariable() when SetVariable() isn't available
> during runtime services, simplify the requirements without losing the
> ability to read variables by using the RuntimeServicesSupported variable
> from UEFI v2.8.1 (unreleased); Mant
> 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
Hi Grant,
I'm off this week so can't join the call. I've asked the FreeBSD guys to
prepare something too, that looks promising.
I can also create a simple openSUSe/SLE based demo for at least RPi3, Ultra96
and anything SBBR and SLE supported (like mcbin).
The main question point is whether we
On 07/30/2018 06:02 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:11 AM Alexander Graf wrote:
On 07/30/2018 02:39 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 07/30/2018 02:16 PM, David Rusling wrote:
Success. I now have a u-boot built on Arm64 that works. Along the
way I learnt various things:
[1
On 07/30/2018 02:39 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 07/30/2018 02:16 PM, David Rusling wrote:
Success. I now have a u-boot built on Arm64 that works. Along the
way I learnt various things:
[1] Raspberry Pi's first stage loader generates the device tree.
Overlays are used to turn va
On 07/30/2018 02:16 PM, David Rusling wrote:
Success. I now have a u-boot built on Arm64 that works. Along the
way I learnt various things:
[1] Raspberry Pi's first stage loader generates the device tree.
Overlays are used to turn various things on (for example sound) at
boot time.
Ye
al, but did flush out the discussion of
>>> how future updates to the specification would be handled, and added a
>>> note about DT platform compatibility rules.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Grant Likely
>>> Cc: Bill Mills
>>&
On 06.07.18 18:26, Grant Likely wrote:
> Give some rationale behind EBBR so the reader understands what problem
> the specification is intended to solve.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bill Mills
> [glikely: made it more verbose to make the intent clear]
> Signed-off-by: Grant Likely
> ---
> source/chapt
On 06.07.18 15:10, Grant Likely wrote:
> On 06/07/2018 14:03, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 06.07.18 14:57, Grant Likely wrote:
>>> Dong,
>>>
>>> Looking at the current state of EBBR, Appendix A contains a big list of
>>> bo
On 06.07.18 14:57, Grant Likely wrote:
> Dong,
>
> Looking at the current state of EBBR, Appendix A contains a big list of
> boot/runtime services and protocols that are required to be implemented.
> However, I don't think this list has been audited, and I'm not sure how
> much of it is actually
On 02.07.18 20:40, William Mills wrote:
>
>
> On 07/02/2018 12:15 PM, Daniel Thompson wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 01, 2018 at 10:37:49AM -0400, William Mills wrote:
>>> All,
>>>
>>> I rely on your greater knowledge to help me understand these questions.
>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>
>>> 1) GPT and block
On 08.06.18 21:57, Grant Likely wrote:
> Add some more detail on how to handle system firmware. I'm still
> undecided about this, so this patch is more of an RFC discussion than a
> serious patch. Please comment.
>
> Cc: Daniel Thompson
> Signed-off-by: Grant Likely
> ---
> source/ebbr.rst |
On 24.05.18 12:14, Udit Kumar wrote:
> Hi Alex
>
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: Alexander Graf [mailto:ag...@suse.de]
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 6:11 PM
>> To: Udit Kumar ; boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org;
>> arm.ebbr-disc...@arm.com
>&
On 24.05.18 11:16, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 04:08:52PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>>> +MBR partitioning
>>>>> +
>>>>> +
>>>>> +Protective partitions should have a partition type of 0xF8
On 05/23/2018 03:21 PM, Daniel Thompson wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:12:26PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
Am 22.05.2018 um 21:17 schrieb Daniel Thompson :
Fixes: #3
Fixed: #8
Signed-off-by: Daniel Thompson
---
Notes:
This patch tries to capture contributions from a long a varied
On 05/23/2018 03:12 PM, Daniel Thompson wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 09:31:16PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
Hi Daniel,
Thanks for writing this. Good job. Comments below.
On 22/05/2018 20:17, Daniel Thompson wrote:
Fixes: #3
Fixed: #8
Signed-off-by: Daniel Thompson
Nit: I'd like to maintain
On 05/23/2018 12:14 AM, Udit Kumar wrote:
This patch adds a appendix for EBBR compliance test.
Signed-off-by: Udit Kumar
---
source/ebbr.rst | 16
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
diff --git a/source/ebbr.rst b/source/ebbr.rst
index 40f03f1..880f126 100644
--- a/source/ebbr
> Am 22.05.2018 um 21:17 schrieb Daniel Thompson :
>
> Fixes: #3
> Fixed: #8
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Thompson
> ---
>
> Notes:
>This patch tries to capture contributions from a long a varied discussion.
>I hope I haven't missed anything major.
>
>Thanks to all the contributors to
-by: Grant Likely
Reviewed-by: Alexander Graf
Alex
___
boot-architecture mailing list
boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture
On 05/14/2018 12:01 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 11:44 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 05/07/2018 08:31 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
Can you please name platform that has enough support for Alexander to
care about backwards and forwards compatibility but lacks a pinctrl
driver
On 05/07/2018 08:46 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 12:17 PM, William Mills wrote:
On 05/07/2018 11:49 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 1:41 PM, William Mills wrote:
On 05/04/2018 01:03 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
Am 04.05.2018 um 18:50 schrieb Alexander Graf:
On
On 05/08/2018 12:34 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
On Mon 07 May 12:55 PDT 2018, Rob Herring wrote:
On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Bjorn Andersson
wrote:
On Tue 01 May 14:31 PDT 2018, Rob Herring wrote:
Deferred probe will currently wait forever on dependent devices to probe,
but sometimes a d
on firmware provided
pinctrl setups if there is no matching pinctrl driver in the kernel.
Cc: Alexander Graf
Signed-off-by: Rob Herring
---
This patch came out of a discussion on the ARM boot-architecture
list[1] about DT forwards and backwards compatibility issues. There are
issues with new
On 08.05.18 18:09, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 05:43:51PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 08.05.18 16:38, Daniel Thompson wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 02:41:56PM -0400, William Mills wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
On 08.05.18 16:38, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 02:41:56PM -0400, William Mills wrote:
>>
>> On 05/04/2018 01:03 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
>>> Am 04.05.2018 um 18:50 schrieb Alexander Graf:
>>>> On 05/04/2018 06:20 PM, William Mills
On 05/04/2018 06:20 PM, William Mills wrote:
[explicitly cc'ing boot-arch to see if this solves the TI auth problems]
On 05/04/2018 11:45 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 05/04/2018 04:56 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
On 04/05/2018 15:46, Grant Likely wrote:
On 03/05/2018 09:43, Daniel Thompson
On 03.05.18 18:11, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 9:29 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 04/30/2018 08:36 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 4:39 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Rob,
>>>>
>
Wed, May 02, 2018 at 05:12:03AM +, Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW
>>>> Technologist) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>>> From: Udit Kumar [mailto:udit.ku...@nxp.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2018 12:2
On 04/30/2018 08:36 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 4:39 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
Hi Rob,
On 27.04.18 18:40, Rob Herring wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 2:47 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 27.04.18 08:24, Udit Kumar wrote:
Hi
There is bit of discussion on linux-efi too , to
, 2018 12:26 PM
To: Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist) ;
Alexander Graf ; William Mills
Cc: boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org; n...@arm.com; Rod Dorris
; arm.ebbr-disc...@arm.com
Subject: RE: DT handling, [Ref Linux-Efi]
We probably don't need to provide a genetic DT driver in UEFI U-Boot,
in
l of subsystems
that can be optional, and then only so many drivers in those that can be
modules (at least for pinctrl, many drivers are built-in only).
Cc: Alexander Graf
Signed-off-by: Rob Herring
---
This patch came out of a discussion on the ARM boot-architecture
list[1] about DT forward
Hi Rob,
On 27.04.18 18:40, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 2:47 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 27.04.18 08:24, Udit Kumar wrote:
>>> Hi
>>> There is bit of discussion on linux-efi too , to handle DT update
>>>
>>>
On 26.04.18 18:52, William Mills wrote:
>
>
> On 04/26/2018 08:43 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 04/26/2018 10:51 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
>>> On 25/04/2018 19:34, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 25.04.18 19:54, Leif Lindhol
On 27.04.18 08:24, Udit Kumar wrote:
> Hi
> There is bit of discussion on linux-efi too , to handle DT update
>
> I guess some members of this forum are active there too.
>
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-efi/msg13700.html
>
> To summaries
> 1/ Ownership of DTB
> IMO should be firm
On 04/26/2018 10:51 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
On 25/04/2018 19:34, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 25.04.18 19:54, Leif Lindholm wrote:
I took an action last week to provide a block of text for how
platforms without persistent variable storage should behave. Here's my
opening play:
Thanks a lo
On 25.04.18 19:54, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> I took an action last week to provide a block of text for how
> platforms without persistent variable storage should behave. Here's my
> opening play:
Thanks a lot for getting this started!
>
> Boot manager behaviour without persistent variable store
>
Hi Udit,
> Am 23.04.2018 um 07:15 schrieb Udit Kumar :
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> I was reading your notes for DT management
>
>> Alex: Have logic in firmware that can enumerate "Hat"s and create EFI object
>> for them. These objects could then be backed by DTBOs - either by grabbing
>> them from the
49 matches
Mail list logo
