Re: [PATCH] Update manifesto from comments on mailing list

On 07/09/2018 08:17 AM, Grant Likely wrote: > Editing in response to comments from Bill Mills, Daniel Thompson, and > Alex Graf. Mostly trivial editorial, but did flush out the discussion of > how future updates to the specification would be handled, and added a > note about DT platform compatibi

Re: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] Questions about GPT

I did this days ago but I guess I never sent it. On 07/03/2018 08:04 AM, Nicolas Dechesne wrote: > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 1:13 PM William Mills wrote: >> >> >> On 07/03/2018 05:08 AM, Nicolas Dechesne wrote: >>> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 11:59 PM Alexander Graf

Re: [PATCH] Introduction: add a manifesto

Grant, Excellent. Some suggestions in-line: On 07/06/2018 12:26 PM, 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] > S

Re: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] [PATCH] Introduction: Add a manifesto

On 07/05/2018 11:00 AM, Daniel Thompson wrote: > On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 09:17:59AM -0400, Bill Mills wrote: >> Tell people what to expect from EBBR in easy bullet form. >> >> Signed-off-by: Bill Mills >> --- >> source/chapter1-about.rst | 40 >> 1 file

Re: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] [PATCH] Introduction: Add a manifesto

On 07/05/2018 09:45 AM, Udit Kumar wrote: > > >> -Original Message- >> From: arm.ebbr-discuss-boun...@arm.com [mailto:arm.ebbr-discuss- >> boun...@arm.com] On Behalf Of Bill Mills >> Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 6:48 PM >> To: arm.ebbr-disc...@arm.com; boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org

Re: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] Questions about GPT

On 07/03/2018 12:24 PM, Grant Likely wrote: > On 03/07/2018 16:58, Daniel Thompson wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 04:46:38PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote: >>> On 03/07/2018 10:08, Nicolas Dechesne wrote: >>>> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 11:59 PM Alexander Graf wrote: &g

Re: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] Questions about GPT

On 07/03/2018 05:08 AM, Nicolas Dechesne wrote: > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 11:59 PM Alexander Graf wrote: >> 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 wr

Re: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] Questions about GPT

On 07/03/2018 02:52 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > On 07/02/2018 11:58 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >> >> >> 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:

Re: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] Questions about GPT

On 07/02/2018 02:40 PM, 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.

Re: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] Questions about GPT

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 size >&g

Questions about GPT

All, I rely on your greater knowledge to help me understand these questions. Thanks in advance. 1) GPT and block size GPT uses LBA for its data stuctures The size of a block is historically 512B but is moving to larger sizes (4KB). The code needs to handle this on a per device mount basis. How d

Re: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] EBBR - Fog, Edge and Device

David, On 05/22/2018 07:12 AM, David Rusling wrote: > > > On Tue, 22 May 2018 at 11:52 Peter Robinson > wrote: > > On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:40 AM, David Rusling > mailto:david.rusl...@linaro.org>> wrote: > > All, > >   I'm writing a blog on Linaro

Re: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] Notes on "requiring" separate storage

On 06/01/2018 06:08 AM, Daniel Thompson wrote: > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 06:08:09PM -0400, William Mills wrote: >> Hello, >> >> My notes on "requiring" (or strongly recommending) separate storage. >> >> A couple of times we have gone around the i

Notes on "requiring" separate storage

Hello, My notes on "requiring" (or strongly recommending) separate storage. A couple of times we have gone around the issue of "is it reasonable to require new platforms have separate storage for firmware". Pros: P1) No disk partition plan etc P2) Runtime var storage is much easier Cons: C1) Co

Re: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] Proposed EBBR Document Structure

See below. As I have said before, I like a document that has examples. We all have traded example use cases and platforms to make our points about what should and should not be required. That should not be left embedded deep in mail archives. Instead we should give the spec reader the same benef

Re: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] Booting from eMMC without the boot protocol

On 05/08/2018 12:25 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > > 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,

Re: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] Booting from eMMC without the boot protocol

On 05/07/2018 02:46 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 12:17 PM, William Mills wrote: >> TI has put FAT in its ROMs for years (granted w/o long name support.) >> Sure early versions of that code had some quicks but the complexity is >> manageable. > > T

Re: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] Booting from eMMC without the boot protocol

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 05/04/2018 06:20 PM, William Mills wrote: >>

Re: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] Booting from eMMC without the boot protocol

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 wrote: >>> On 05/04/2018 11:45 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> I am missing something.  If there is only MBR and no GPT then there

Re: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] Booting from eMMC without the boot protocol

[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 wrote: On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 06:09:15PM -

Re: DT handling, [Ref Linux-Efi]

4:07 PM >> To: Alexander Graf ; William Mills >> Cc: boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org; n...@arm.com; Rod Dorris >> ; arm.ebbr-disc...@arm.com >> Subject: Re: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] DT handling, [Ref Linux-Efi] >> >> >> Hi Alex >> >>> -Origin

Re: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] ebbr: boot behaviour without persistent variables

On 04/30/2018 10:26 AM, Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist) wrote: >> On 30 April 2018 at 16:00, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >>> On 30 April 2018 at 15:57, Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist) >> Also, eMMC controllers (which are more widely used on mobile platforms as >> the only available storage

DTBO handling, Re: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] EBBR weekly meeting in 1/2 hour

On 04/23/2018 01:55 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: > 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

Re: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] ebbr: boot behaviour without persistent variables

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 Lindholm wrote: I took an action last week to provide a block of text for how platforms without persistent variab