Re: DT relevance

On 8 Sep 2025, at 20:43, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:  ff schrieb am Mo., 8. Sept. 2025, 19:27: Dear fellow firmware aficionados, Static ACPI has been adopted by Mercedes and other silicon vendors to: - meet the safety requirements - stay away from DT lifecycle issues - leverage chiplet

DT relevance

Dear fellow firmware aficionados, Static ACPI has been adopted by Mercedes and other silicon vendors to: - meet the safety requirements - stay away from DT lifecycle issues - leverage chiplet and CXL bindings - truly multi-host/hypervisor (or even secure/no-secure should people want it) as bindin

Re: Generic DT loading on EFI platforms

Hi Two unrelated point of views: 1) In the case of FPGA boards such as the Chameleon96 (96boards) some of the overlays may have to be handled before memory is up, that is with TFA or U-Boot SPL. For instance the FPGA may be used to define a DRM solution which could change the RAM split between

Re: OS provided DT proposal

Jon and Pere, Since I created my own hypervisor based SoC simulator, my vision of DT has changed... I think Jon clearly lays out a problem that needs to be solved. Nothing prevents a vendor to organise its boot flow as described, but I believe it is philosophically opposite to EBBR premise tha

Re: [PATCH 00/21] Qualcomm generic board support

, 2023 at 08:24:01PM +, ff wrote: Le 7 déc. 2023 à 19:51, Rob Herring a écrit : On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 2:08 AM ff wrote: Le 6 déc. 2023 à 21:42, Rob Herring a écrit : On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 11:05 PM Sumit Garg wrote: On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 at 15:39, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: On 05/12

Re: [PATCH 00/21] Qualcomm generic board support

Le 7 déc. 2023 à 19:51, Rob Herring a écrit : On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 2:08 AM ff wrote: Le 6 déc. 2023 à 21:42, Rob Herring a écrit : On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 11:05 PM Sumit Garg wrote: On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 at 15:39, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: On 05/12/2023 10:45, Sumit Garg wrote: + U

Re: [PATCH 00/21] Qualcomm generic board support

> Le 6 déc. 2023 à 21:42, Rob Herring a écrit : > > On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 11:05 PM Sumit Garg wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 at 15:39, Krzysztof Kozlowski >>> wrote: >>> >>> On 05/12/2023 10:45, Sumit Garg wrote: + U-boot custodians list On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 at 12:58, Krzy

Re: [PATCH 00/21] Qualcomm generic board support

Le 5 déc. 2023 à 13:48, Daniel Thompson a écrit : On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 10:36:28AM +, ff wrote: Le 5 déc. 2023 à 10:46, Sumit Garg a écrit : + U-boot custodians list On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 at 12:58, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: On 05/12/2023 08:13, Sumit Garg wrote: @DT bindings

Re: [PATCH 00/21] Qualcomm generic board support

> Le 5 déc. 2023 à 10:46, Sumit Garg a écrit : > > + U-boot custodians list > >> On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 at 12:58, Krzysztof Kozlowski >> wrote: >> >> On 05/12/2023 08:13, Sumit Garg wrote: > @DT bindings maintainers, > > Given the ease of maintenance of DT bindings within Linux ker

Re: [PATCH 00/21] Qualcomm generic board support

> Le 4 déc. 2023 à 14:25, Sumit Garg a écrit : > > On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 at 16:30, Daniel Thompson > wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 11:02:57AM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: >>> + Linux kernel DT bindings maintainers, EBBR ML >>> >>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 at 20:05, Tom Rini wrote: On Thu

Re: [PATCH 00/21] Qualcomm generic board support

> Le 4 déc. 2023 à 12:00, Daniel Thompson a écrit : > > On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 11:02:57AM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: >> + Linux kernel DT bindings maintainers, EBBR ML >> >>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 at 20:05, Tom Rini wrote: >>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 01:02:25PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: On

Re: [PATCH 00/21] Qualcomm generic board support

ntity provides all. You can surely choose any scheme you want. If it is automotive and other markets where there will be separation in the firmware/OS/Hypervisor supply chain, then you should clearly attach the DT to Secure Firmware. Cheers FF PS1: I see an analogy with Google project Trebble

Re: [DT] Chosen node documentation

Many thanks Rob for the information. This confirms I am really a git handicapped person ! > Le 2 nov. 2023 à 14:10, Rob Herring a écrit : > > On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 4:05 AM ff wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> As I am working on Automotive Virtual Platform Speficition

[DT] Chosen node documentation

knows if that is intentional? Cheers FF ___ boot-architecture mailing list -- boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org To unsubscribe send an email to boot-architecture-le...@lists.linaro.org

Re: Firmware handoff status

Thanks a lot Jose. De : Jose Marinho Envoyé : jeudi, février 9, 2023 20:43 À : ff ; Ard Biesheuvel Cc : boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org Objet : RE: Firmware handoff status Hi François, Ard, > Anyone knows what is the status of standardizing firmw

Re: Firmware handoff status

(my mail client doesn't ident, sorry for the mess) On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 at 10:48, ff mailto:f...@shokubai.tech>> wrote: > > Hi > > Anyone knows what is the status of standardizing firmware handoff (when > starting BL33) ? > Here is a reference to the topic: > ht

Firmware handoff status

hypervisors that need to be fully in control of security and thus execute BL33 in an ad hoc "VM". The rationale is to isolate everything that deals with devices or IO (at its core, a hypervisor deals only with CPU, RAM, MMU, SMMU, GIC). Cheers FF PS: To explore how easy it is

FW: [SOAFEE] Hypervisor Portability tiger team meeting

’ll post some later this week. Cordially, FF PS: sorry to spam you with both a calendar invite and a mail. ___ boot-architecture mailing list -- boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org To unsubscribe send an email to boot-architecture-le...@lists.linaro.org