Hi Simon, [...]
> > > > > > > > > > > > Why me? Perhaps Linaro could take this on instead of working in a > > > > > separate tool and domain? You guys could really pull things together > > > > > and reduce the fragmentation, if you took it on. > > > > > > > > > > Honestly it is hard enough to even get Linaro people to write a test > > > > > for code they have written. What gives? > > > > > > > > That's completely inaccurate. We've added selftests for *every* > > > > single feature we've sent for EFI up to now. Functionality wise the > > > > past 2 years we've added > > > > - EFI variables > > > > - EFI secure boot > > > > - capsule updates > > > > - initrd loading > > > > - efi TCG protocol > > > > - ESRT tables > > > > - RNG protocol > > > > > > > > 5a24239c951e8 efi_loader: selftest: enable APPEND_WRITE tests > > > > 3fc2b16335721 cmd: bootefi: carve out efi_selftest code from > > > > do_bootefi() > > > > 1170fee695197 efi_selftest: fix variables test for GetNextVariableName() > > > > ce62b0f8f45f1 test/py: Fix efidebug related tests > > > > 450596f2ac3fd test/py: efi_capsule: test for FIT image capsule > > > > de489d82e3189 test: test the ESRT creation > > > > 57be8cdce35 test/py: efi_secboot: small rework for adding a new test > > > > e1174c566a61c test/py: efi_secboot: add test for intermediate > > > > certificates > > > > 479ab6c17eda7 efi_selftest: add selftests for loadfile2 used to load > > > > initramfs > > > > > > > > and I am pretty sure I am forgetting more on functionality and > > > > selftests. > > > > > > > > So basically we've either contributed new selftests for *everything* > > > > we've or fixed the existing ones. The only thing that's not merged is > > > > the TCG selftests which are on upstream review. > > > > > > Er, I didn't say or mean that no tests were written, just that there > > > is too much push-back on it. Heinrich put a huge amount of effort into > > > > There's no pushback at all, apart from the TPM one. (and for a very good > > reason I've explained over and over again). In fact we add the sefltests > > as part of our patchsets. > > > > > the tests and basically created a strong base for it. Congrats and > > > huge kudos to him. As to Linaro, no offence intended, and it is great > > > that all these tests have been added. Thank you for your efforts and > > > it is very helpful. But I think you miss my point. Or perhaps you > > > don't even agree with it? I sent an email about this on one patch just > > > a day or two ago. > > > > I guess you mean [1]. I've lost count of how many times I responded to > > this. Threads [2], [3] and [4] are just a few examples, so I just got > > tired or replying the same thing over and over. > > > > So bottom line, we are contributing selftests as always, we just don't agree > > with the way *you* want this specific TPM test, trying to force us into > > sandbox. > > So instead of respecting what we have (which btw is acceptable from u-boot's > > perspective and cleans up a lot of the TPM crud along the way), you went > > ahead > > making misleading statements on the selftests we contribute, in general. > > What's > > even more annoying is that, as I showed you, we pretty much add a selftest > > for *every* feature we add. Excellent ... that's certainly ... > > encouraging ... and > > very productive. > > > > > > > > As to the leadership side (my bigger point), Linaro is leading us all > > > down this fragmented path, with TF-A, FIP, more and more binaries and > > > larger firmware diagrams. Or do you disagree with that too? > > > > > > > Of course I disagree. People decided not to use SPL for their own reasons. > > I am certainly not qualified to answer why Arm choose to do that, but it > > seems > > to be common nowdays (risc-v/OpenSBI). All Linaro is doing is making sure > > U-Boot is compatible and remains the de-facto choice for embedded boot > > loaders playing nicely with all the new FSBLs come up with. If you > > cosinder SPL and U-Boot the center of the known universe, we certainly view > > things differently. FWIW it's *our* work mostly that made U-Boot > > SystemReady > > compliant, which is something Arm pushes for [5]. > > > > > I'm sorry if you find this a bit sharp. > > > > Which part? The first one wrt to selftests is not sharp. It's > > manipulative and utterly unacceptable for me, not to mention entirely > > fabricated. > > > > The latter on bootloading fragmentation, I am always happy to discuss. > > My comment was about the push-back I feel I have received when > requesting tests. It was a poor choice of words since it suggests this > is an ongoing problem when in fact many tests have been written. So I > would like to withdraw that and I am sorry for saying that and for > upsetting you. I certainly agree that Linaro has written lots of tests > and this is great. Thank you to you and Linaro for that. The business > of how the tests are written can be handled in other threads. Thanks, I appreciate this. Let's just forget this ever happened. The discussions are usually constructive and I am happy with the general progress, despite of the differences of opinion. > > > > > > But someone needs to be > > > pointing these things out. I don't know who else is doing so. ARM > > > firmware has got noticeably more complicated and fragmented in the > > > last five years, hasn't it? What can Linaro do to address that? I am > > > very happy to help and provide part of the solution, but it needs a > > > shared vision. > > > > There's a TF-A mailing list, we can certainly engage there and try to align > > our ideas/designs. > > > > > > > > It's not even just a Linaro/ARM problem. On the x86 side it is fast > > > becoming a living nightmare. > > > > > > Perhaps the problem here is just the pandemic response and the > > > inability for people to get into a room and brainstorm / collaborate / > > > hack on ideas? I know you have made big efforts to engage, Ilias. We > > > have spoken many times and I'm sure f2f would be easier. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not even just a Linaro/ARM problem. On the x86 side it is fast > > > becoming a living nightmare. > > > > > > Perhaps the problem here is just the pandemic response and the > > > inability for people to get into a room and brainstorm / collaborate / > > > hack on ideas? I know you have made big efforts to engage, Ilias. We > > > have spoken many times and I'm sure f2f would be easier. > > > > Maybe, hopefully travelling will restart soon. > > I think the whole issue in this thread comes down to a matter of alignment. > > As you can tell, I am frustrated with where things are headed and hope > we can course-correct at some point. This is a matter of perspective to me. I've accepted the fact that firmware gets more complex. Whether I personally like it or not is a different story. One thing that's clear to me though is that we either have to adapt, or slowly become irrelevant. Thanks /Ilias > > Regards, > Simon > > > > > > [1] > > https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/CAPnjgZ2mmcUKz0v=yssvf17c6ab++-hepo4rc0oeeaez7pf...@mail.gmail.com/ > > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/yvdlvpthuqr8j...@apalos.home/ > > [3] > > https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/CAC_iWjLWxPyEwPpG7v=1u1sxlod4lxf+vm+cgthom9mpz9p...@mail.gmail.com/ > > [4] https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/yvggrqgvaihvd...@apalos.home/ > > [5] > > https://www.arm.com/why-arm/architecture/systems/systemready-certification-program/ir?_ga=2.140829686.578781084.1635493248-857780164.1580291819 > > > > Regards > > /Ilias
