On 24.05.18 12:14, Udit Kumar wrote: > Hi Alex > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Alexander Graf [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 6:11 PM >> To: Udit Kumar <[email protected]>; [email protected]; >> [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] [PATCH] Issue#10 Add EBBR compliance test >> >> On 05/23/2018 12:14 AM, Udit Kumar wrote: >>> This patch adds a appendix for EBBR compliance test. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Udit Kumar <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> 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.rst >>> +++ b/source/ebbr.rst >>> @@ -557,6 +557,22 @@ Service UEFI ยง >>> EFI_ISCSI_INITIATOR_NAME_PROTOCOL 16.2 >>> ========================================== ====== >>> >>> +******************************************* >>> +APPENDIX E - EBBR Compliance Tests >>> +******************************************* >>> + >>> +UEFI Self Certification Tests (SCT) test the UEFI implementation. >>> +EBBR is leveraging from UEFI, UEFI SCT test suites check for >>> +compliance against the EBBR specification. >>> +To build UEFI SCT, please refer >>> +https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgi >>> +thub.com%2FUEFI%2FUEFI- >> SCT&data=02%7C01%7Cudit.kumar%40nxp.com%7C5ed7 >>> >> +d13d31d44f31617908d5c0aa62ba%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635% >> 7C0%7 >>> >> +C0%7C636626760411185960&sdata=Lg1H2PRYE%2BB%2FqOutUdamcZDghsxe >> xFbdTBO >>> +OuUpmVnE%3D&reserved=0 >> >> Please reword the above to something that is easier to read (and >> grammatically >> correct). I also think you may want to structure it from big picture to small > > > Sure, I will reword > >> picture. So you should first mention that EBBR will need multiple compliance >> test > > Could you help me here, which other compliance test you are thinking
I don't think we have any yet beyond SCT, but I'm sure we will have to have more, so the section should account for that :). > >> pieces to run and only then mention SCT as the method to verify UEFI >> compliance. > > >>> + >>> +EBBR is very flexible and many features are platform dependent. >>> +Therefore platform owner can decide, to implement and test optional >> features >>> +with UEFI SCT. >> >> I think a lot of the requirements that get put into this document can be >> generically verified, so I wouldn't wave it off that quickly as "it's >> flexible, so someone may or may not test things". > > I meant here, feature like RTC, Secure boot etc are marked as optional > But mandatory features (which are part of appendix above) must be verified. > >> Instead, I'd rather >> like to see a reference in here that a test kit for EBBR is in >> development and will probably not be finished in time for EBBR 1.0, but >> is expected at a later point. > > Having test kit a great idea, We can leverage from SBBR ACS. > If there is no objection then we can start with EBBR CS [compliance test > suites], > UEFI SCT will be part of this ? If you want to take the lead on this, be my guest :). Alex _______________________________________________ boot-architecture mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture
