Hi Peter, On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 at 01:35, Peter Robinson <pbrobin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 at 00:05, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Nishanth, > > > > On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 at 15:35, Nishanth Menon <n...@ti.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Team, > > > > > > We have briefly discussed this topic on IRC[1]. I would like to > > > propose a new boot-firmware repository similar to the Linux-firmware > > > repository under the aegis of u-boot hosting. > > > > > > In addition to TI, it looks like some NXP[2] and Rockchip[3] > > > platforms seem to require additional closed-source/open-source > > > binaries to have a complete bootable image. Distribution rights and > > > locations of these binaries are challenging, and there needs to be a > > > standard for how and where they are hosted for end users. > > > > > > Further, looking ahead to future architectures: > > > * IP firmware: More and more IP vendors are embedding their own > > > "specialized controllers" and require firmware for the operation > > > (similar to Rockchip's DDR controller, I guess), > > > * boot stage firmware: Additional stages of the boot process involve > > > vendor intermediate firmware, such as power configuration. > > > * Security enclave binaries: While I see a few folks trying to have an > > > open-source s/w architecture, many PKA and PQC systems still require > > > prop binaries for IP reasons. > > > > > > NOTE: I am not judging any company(including TI) for reasons why some > > > firmware is proprietary, but I hate to have the end users and other > > > system (distro) maintainers have to deal with hell trying to make the > > > life of end users easy to live with. > > > > > > In the case of TI's K3 architecture devices, we have two binary blobs > > > that are critical for the boot process. > > > > > > 1. TIFS Firmware / DMSC firmware[4]—This is the security enclave > > > firmware. It is often encrypted, and sources are not public (due to > > > various business/regulatory reasons). > > > 2. DM Firmware[5] - There is a source in public in some cases and > > > binary only in others - essentially limited function binary to be > > > put up in the device management uC. In cases where the source is > > > available, the build procedure is, in my personal opinion, pretty > > > arcane, and even though in theory it is practical, in practice, not > > > friendly - efforts are going to simplify it, even probably integrate > > > it with a more opensource ecosystem, but that is talking "look at the > > > tea leaves" stuff. > > > 3. Low Power Management (LPM) binaries: tifs stub: another encrypted > > > binary that gives the tifs system context restore logic before > > > retrieving tifs firmware and a corresponding DM restoration binary. > > > > > > All told, this is not unlike the situation that necessitated the > > > creation of a Linux firmware repository. > > > > > > Options that I see: > > > > > > 1. Let the status quo be - SoC vendors maintain random locations and > > > random rules to maintain boot firmware. > > > 2. Ask Linux-firmware to host the binaries in a single canonical > > > location > > > 3. Host a boot-firmware repository - u-boot repo may be the more > > > logical location. > > > > > > * (1) isn't the correct answer. > > > > > > * (2) Though I haven't seen any policy from the Linux-firmware > > > community mandating anything of the form, the binaries we are talking > > > of may not belong to Linux-firmware as they aren't strictly speaking > > > something Linux kernel will load (since the bootloader has that > > > responsibility), and in some cases may not even directly talk to > > > (security enclave or DDR firmware stuff). I am adding Josh to this > > > mail to see if he has any opinions on the topic (but keeping > > > from cross posting on linux-firmware list, unless folks feel it is > > > OK). > > > > > > On (3): > > > Proposal: > > > > > > * Create a boot firmware repository in Denx and/or GitHub (if > > > financials are a hurdle, I hope we can solve it as a community). > > > * Limit binaries only to those consumed part of the u-boot scope. > > > > > > * Limit binaries only to those that do not have an opensource project > > > (Trusted Firmware-A/M, OP-TEE, etc..) or depend entirely on vendor > > > source or are binary only in nature (subject to licensing terms below) > > > * Limit binaries to some pre-established size to prevent repository > > > explosion - say, 512Kib? > > > * Follow the same rules of integration and licensing guidelines as > > > Linux-firmware[6]. > > > * Similar rules as Linux-firmware guidelines of ABI backward and > > > forward compatibility. > > > * Set a workflow update flow and a compatibility requirements document > > > > > > If we agree to have boot firmware under the stewardship of u-boot, we > > > should also set other rules, which is excellent to discuss. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > I suggest: > > > > 4) Add a 'binman blob' subcommand which can fetch blobs, similarly to > > how 'binman tool -f xxx' features a tool, using the image description > > to know what is needed and some configuration for where to find it / > > how to build it. > > This is a solving a different problem IMO. Also most distros build in > constrained environments so pulling FW randomly with a tool in the > build process won't work. Also most users won't want to pull the > latest each time they build, most vendors will choose a static set of > versions and only bump to deal with bugs, CVEs or explicit features > they need rather than having a series of moving targets.
Yes of course. This is actually how 'binman tool' works - unless you explicitly fetch something it uses what you have. I am certainly not suggesting that binman fetch things as part of the build itself, but that it provide a way to programmatically obtain the required bobs, e.g. fetching from a defined (or public) repo or building from source. We would need to support different versions of the same file, dealing with files which are common across SoCs, etc. > > Well the whole point of the repo is to remove the guesswork, it would > be a set of firmware that is expected to work in a single location. I don't believe a repo is sufficient. The instructions for building images are becoming complex enough that it is a non-trivial job for anyone to work through the steps and figure out what to do. If you are deeply into a particular SoC it is worth the effort, I suppose. But I favour a comprehensive image description (as provided by Binman) and a programmatic method. I'm not sure of the best way to 'uprev' blobs, but wherever they are stored, I suppose the image description would be changed to select the new version. > > > IMO the actual repo is not the ultimate goal here. Building and > > testing should be the ultimate goal. > > I disagree, the repo would assist working and tested firmware because > there could be a review/test process as part of it to ensure things > work and are tested to give users a good experience rather than having > to search the web and forum posts to attempt to find pieces that work > together. I believe we are saying the same thing here, albeit that I feel a repo is not enough. Regards, Simon > > > > > > > [1] https://libera.irclog.whitequark.org/u-boot/2024-06-13#36498796; > > > [2] https://docs.nxp.com/bundle/AN14093/page/topics/build_the_u-boot.html > > > [3] https://bbs.t-firefly.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=2236 > > > [4] > > > https://git.ti.com/cgit/processor-firmware/ti-linux-firmware/tree/ti-sysfw?h=ti-linux-firmware > > > [5] > > > https://git.ti.com/cgit/processor-firmware/ti-linux-firmware/tree/ti-dm?h=ti-linux-firmware > > > [6] > > > https://docs.kernel.org/next/driver-api/firmware/firmware-usage-guidelines.html > > > -- > > > Regards, > > > Nishanth Menon > > > Key (0xDDB5849D1736249D) / Fingerprint: F8A2 8693 54EB 8232 17A3 1A34 > > > DDB5 849D 1736 249D
