From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08572C433EF for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 10:21:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from phobos.denx.de (phobos.denx.de [85.214.62.61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BF2F610E5 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 10:21:06 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 2BF2F610E5 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linaro.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lists.denx.de Received: from h2850616.stratoserver.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by phobos.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 729778331B; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 12:21:03 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linaro.org Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="VF+a33Zr"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by phobos.denx.de (Postfix, from userid 109) id 269E7835A6; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 12:21:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-ed1-x52d.google.com (mail-ed1-x52d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by phobos.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D89568320C for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 12:20:55 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linaro.org Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org Received: by mail-ed1-x52d.google.com with SMTP id z20so37292892edc.13 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 03:20:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=6rxSgAgMHs87NA5fGnwpuNZlXi8WhKD3BIgz92wLIyw=; b=VF+a33ZrFOGKWldIWXnzxXoHyLAmoADPR0y4eGdc5yg6yNxeHiPID1Nv5H2dp/VVRG P1eB9/KGl5k3u+j2SILzUOauEAuPWvSdoUga+512uNgGGWEWVcGsMQAOQTyuDcJrEv7p f0q7GUaymXRs/VqdfYUQTt+dx3Q/p6LZuXYQhBfBZvy4jgXfCTaqYEsxNF6g8bAxkYEs WieHPrEiMJXCCpyPmo9zZqrsKi+MnPSd5Lhh02sYqKPcvlr0WHeDWsr4hrjWFvul/A5d LvDeS+RXWwscMV19FxPqOP2WZ3t4EFcAOgLiiCI/dwNBb2oV4L65Ll3pfvjV8ij/7flg pI9g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=6rxSgAgMHs87NA5fGnwpuNZlXi8WhKD3BIgz92wLIyw=; b=IfEpt1a/MOjupNGxOe0dlEUKIgMuxRmT6hpEd2t9j02PZ75CoRVhGFeZZn6JGNU+FH DD9Ev5J+0cEA396x75j55BxNImt2fzwzfDpgFLjuKnPe2pmkBJKNsCG1w+DHHqUqzCI9 dhwD8ur3OJjh1GJzMqh/uYdOt+sKNm4vZBqrFvRu9XVZp1QlMBsQRrznG30BrS93apnm 3jjnfNbHyvtDfX6G32K/fbuikQE4bpbqPKSrOaZ2J9tuzeHj/vSEMGKDWrYuILqVdyrx G02ZoG5dwPlSugYSPcCtzN4GMXAuREwco2P7G3IUJeAhuO/VpR8+M+H9IPT8LfSAmIw2 r86A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533IO43FCUvz49yF8OgstgcXlKtywB6joHYOWCyMgy/lQhPRdxd5 CPAwuJTd58AKt/4zIggCGGvqCQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxh0nDEX0+5swmHBK4qnOEBgnBcZZCvo3sXclkS12cw8yLGjXHu8U3YVT/PeHMRkj0mCPi+DQ== X-Received: by 2002:a50:c449:: with SMTP id w9mr13972615edf.299.1635502855421; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 03:20:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from enceladus (ppp-94-66-220-13.home.otenet.gr. [94.66.220.13]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e20sm225611edv.64.2021.10.29.03.20.53 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 29 Oct 2021 03:20:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 13:20:52 +0300 From: Ilias Apalodimas To: Simon Glass Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois?= Ozog , U-Boot Mailing List , Mark Kettenis , Heinrich Schuchardt , Tom Rini , Sean Anderson , Marcel Ziswiler Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 02/26] doc: Add documentation about devicetree usage Message-ID: References: <20211026002344.405160-1-sjg@chromium.org> <20211026002344.405160-3-sjg@chromium.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: u-boot@lists.denx.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: U-Boot discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de Sender: "U-Boot" X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.103.2 at phobos.denx.de X-Virus-Status: Clean 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. > 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. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/CAPnjgZ2mmcUKz0v=ysSvf17c6ab++-hEpO4rc0OeeAEz7pFA2g@mail.gmail.com/ [2] https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/YVdlvpThuqr8jksL@apalos.home/ [3] https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/CAC_iWjLWxPyEwPpG7v=1U1sxLOD4LXF+Vm+cGTHom9Mpz9pAgw@mail.gmail.com/ [4] https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/YVGGRqgVAiHvd1aR@apalos.home/ [5] https://www.arm.com/why-arm/architecture/systems/systemready-certification-program/ir?_ga=2.140829686.578781084.1635493248-857780164.1580291819 Regards /Ilias