Re: [SPECIFICATION RFC] The firmware and bootloader log specification

[Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1530 bytes --]

On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 02:23:23PM +0100, 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 believe the main thing that came out of this was the reminder that
there was an even older attempt by U-Boot to have such a mechanism, and
that at the time getting the work accepted in Linux faced some hurdles
or another.

That said, I too agree with taking what's already a de facto standard,
the coreboot logging, and expand on it as needed.

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 659 bytes --]