Re: Let's talk about boot loaders

2016-05-06 Thread Mark Brown
On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 02:03:42PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote: > On 05/06/2016 01:10 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 12:20:40PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote: > > > But is it really worth trying after so long of the right thing not > > > happening? If anyone really cared about making ge

Re: Let's talk about boot loaders

2016-05-06 Thread Mark Brown
On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 12:20:40PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote: > But is it really worth trying after so long of the right thing not > happening? If anyone really cared about making general purpose distros boot > on embedded boards, efforts to compel standards would have happened years > ago. To do i

Re: Let's talk about boot loaders

2016-05-06 Thread Grant Likely
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > > On 06.05.16 13:03, Grant Likely wrote: >> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:10 AM, Tom Rini wrote: >>> On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 10:21:25PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: So what's the goal here? Are we trying to force GPT on systems whose

Re: Let's talk about boot loaders

2016-05-06 Thread Alexander Graf
On 06.05.16 13:03, Grant Likely wrote: > On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:10 AM, Tom Rini wrote: >> On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 10:21:25PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> So what's the goal here? Are we trying to force GPT on systems whose >>> vendors never intended them to run with GPT? >>> >>> It really

Re: Let's talk about boot loaders

2016-05-06 Thread Grant Likely
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:10 AM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 10:21:25PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: >> On 05.05.16 17:21, Grant Likely wrote: >> > On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Marcin Juszkiewicz >> > wrote: >> >> Recently my angry post on Google+ [1] got so many comments that it

Re: Let's talk about boot loaders

2016-05-06 Thread Grant Likely
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:10 AM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 05:30:55PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote: >> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Mark Brown wrote: >> > On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 09:01:05PM +0530, Amit Kucheria wrote: >> >> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 5:15 PM, Marcin Juszkiewicz >> > >>

Re: Let's talk about boot loaders

2016-05-05 Thread Mark Brown
On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 12:44:57PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > All of the best practices people here are talking about appear to be geared > toward a frictionless connection to the ARM Linux ecosystem. That's > something many software focused Linaro participants care about, but is that > some

Re: Let's talk about boot loaders

2016-05-05 Thread Alexander Graf
On 05.05.16 17:21, Grant Likely wrote: > On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Marcin Juszkiewicz > wrote: >> Recently my angry post on Google+ [1] got so many comments that it was clear >> that it would be better to move to some mailing list with discussion. >> >> As it is about boot loaders and Lin

Re: Let's talk about boot loaders

2016-05-05 Thread Brendan Conoboy
On 05/05/2016 12:05 PM, Bill Gatliff wrote: On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 11:50 AM Martin Stadtler mailto:martin.stadt...@linaro.org>> wrote: Specifically for the 96boards, the spec is a recommended view, but its not meant to be constraining, however it does allow one to then show a best p

Re: Let's talk about boot loaders

2016-05-05 Thread Martin Stadtler
+1 On 5 May 2016 at 20:08, Bill Gatliff wrote: > > > On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 11:50 AM Martin Stadtler < > martin.stadt...@linaro.org> wrote: > >> I would add, that you need to draw a line in the sand between the >> 'consumer' (don't flame me, I am just struggling to find a better term) >> boards

Re: Let's talk about boot loaders

2016-05-05 Thread Mark Brown
On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 07:47:41PM +0100, Martin Stadtler wrote: > Specifically for the 96boards, the spec is a recommended view, but its not > meant to be constraining, however it does allow one to then show a best > practice, that others can adopt. That's where the RPB comes in to play, > again

Re: Let's talk about boot loaders

2016-05-05 Thread Martin Stadtler
I would add, that you need to draw a line in the sand between the 'consumer' (don't flame me, I am just struggling to find a better term) boards and those that are positioned for production/enterprise. We can't state that there is only one way that is the right way, that's not fair to anyone, and

Re: Let's talk about boot loaders

2016-05-05 Thread Amit Kucheria
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 9:29 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 09:01:05PM +0530, Amit Kucheria wrote: >> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 5:15 PM, Marcin Juszkiewicz > >> > Solution for existing SoCs is usually adding 1MB of SPI flash during design >> > phase of device and store boot loader(s)

Re: Let's talk about boot loaders

2016-05-05 Thread Mark Brown
On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 06:03:40PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote: > On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > > I think there's one other slightly different angle on this which we > > should address at the same time, creating fresh boot media for a device > > ("I just unpacked my board and

Re: Let's talk about boot loaders

2016-05-05 Thread Grant Likely
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 04:21:59PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote: > >> I think we have everything we need to work around the location of the >> FW boot image without breaking the UEFI spec. The biggest problem is >> making sure partitioning tools don

Re: Let's talk about boot loaders

2016-05-05 Thread Mark Brown
On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 04:21:59PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote: > I think we have everything we need to work around the location of the > FW boot image without breaking the UEFI spec. The biggest problem is > making sure partitioning tools don't go stomping over required > firmware data and renderin

Re: Let's talk about boot loaders

2016-05-05 Thread Grant Likely
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 09:01:05PM +0530, Amit Kucheria wrote: >> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 5:15 PM, Marcin Juszkiewicz > >> > Solution for existing SoCs is usually adding 1MB of SPI flash during design >> > phase of device and store boot loader(s)

Re: Let's talk about boot loaders

2016-05-05 Thread Mark Brown
On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 09:01:05PM +0530, Amit Kucheria wrote: > On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 5:15 PM, Marcin Juszkiewicz > > Solution for existing SoCs is usually adding 1MB of SPI flash during design > > phase of device and store boot loader(s) there. But it is so expensive > > someone would say when

Re: Let's talk about boot loaders

2016-05-05 Thread Amit Kucheria
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 5:15 PM, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote: > Solution for existing SoCs is usually adding 1MB of SPI flash during design > phase of device and store boot loader(s) there. But it is so expensive > someone would say when it is in 10-30 cents range... > > Even 96boards CE specificat

Re: Let's talk about boot loaders

2016-05-05 Thread Grant Likely
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote: > Recently my angry post on Google+ [1] got so many comments that it was clear > that it would be better to move to some mailing list with discussion. > > As it is about boot loaders and Linaro has engineers from most of SoC vendor > compa

Re: Let's talk about boot loaders

2016-05-05 Thread Marcin Juszkiewicz
W dniu 05.05.2016 o 15:26, Simon Glass pisze: This has bugged me for a long time. I see that Rockchip stores its boot information 64 blocks into the device, allowing room for the GPT. This seems like the lowest common denominator for the case you raise. Perhaps ARM could create a set of guidelin

Re: Let's talk about boot loaders

2016-05-05 Thread Simon Glass
Hi, On 5 May 2016 at 05:45, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote: > > Recently my angry post on Google+ [1] got so many comments that it was clear > that it would be better to move to some mailing list with discussion. > > As it is about boot loaders and Linaro has engineers from most of SoC vendor > compa

Let's talk about boot loaders

2016-05-05 Thread Marcin Juszkiewicz
Recently my angry post on Google+ [1] got so many comments that it was clear that it would be better to move to some mailing list with discussion. As it is about boot loaders and Linaro has engineers from most of SoC vendor companies I thought that this will be best one. 1. https://plus.googl