On 12/4/20 7:23 AM, Paul Menzel wrote: > Dear Wim, dear Daniel, > > > First, thank you for including all parties in the discussion. > Am 04.12.20 um 13:52 schrieb Wim Vervoorn: > >> I agree with you. Using an existing standard is better than inventing >> a new one in this case. I think using the coreboot logging is a good >> idea as there is indeed a lot of support already available and it is >> lightweight and simple. > In my opinion coreboot’s format is lacking, that it does not record the > timestamp, and the log level is not stored as metadata, but (in coreboot) > only used to decide if to print the message or not. > > I agree with you, that an existing standard should be used, and in my opinion > it’s Linux message format. That is most widely supported, and existing tools > could then also work with pre-Linux messages. > > Sean Hudson from Mentor Graphics presented that idea at Embedded Linux > Conference Europe 2016 [1]. No idea, if anything came out of that effort. > (Unfortunately, I couldn’t find an email. Does somebody have contacts at > Mentor to find out, how to reach him?)
I forwarded this to Sean. -Frank > > > Kind regards, > > Paul > > > [1]: > http://events17.linuxfoundation.org/sites/events/files/slides/2016-10-12%20-%20ELCE%20-%20Shared%20Logging%20-%20Part%20Deux.pdf
