Hi,
I'd like to make you aware of a set of patches that are currently in review under the "pb/sphinx-doc" topic. These patches do some preparatory work on our documentation so that the reStructured Text (RST) documents can be rendered using a tool called Sphinx (http://www.sphinx-doc.org). This tool will allow us, going forward, to investigate additional output formats and publishing options for the documentation.
The aim of these specific patches is to:
1) Prepare the documentation for building with the Sphinx application
2) Improve the general formatting and naming of the documents
3) Organise the documents into a sensible structure
4) Maintain compatibility with existing renderers
You can find the first patch in the chain on our Gerrit review system, here: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a/+/1041 . Follow the "Relation Chain" to see all of the related patches in the series.
Please note that documentation for upstream platforms is modified by these patches as part of the reformatting. These changes should all be minor but platform maintainers may wish to give them a quick review, especially this one: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a/+/1046 .
As always, any feedback on these changes is welcome and there will always be the opportunity to make further changes beyond the scope of these patches.
Best Regards,
Paul
Hi Marek,
Thanks for raising the topic across the communities. The question is probably how many people from the various projects are going to attend Plumbers this year in Lisbon, so to create some critical mass.
The TF.org project is planning a significant presence at the Open Source Firmware Conference happening the week before in California (https://osfc.io/), sponsoring the event and submitting few engineering topics. This is another great opportunity to meet and chat on Boot/Firmware topics as well.
Having a boot miniconf the week after in Europe may be a natural extension, but I'm wondering if people would be willing to travel and attend two similar events in a row...
Thanks,
Matteo
[Arm & TrustedFirmware.org]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Marek
> Vasut via TF-A
> Sent: 29 April 2019 14:39
> To: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut(a)gmail.com>
> Cc: u-boot-custodians(a)lists.denx.de; tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org;
> coreboot(a)coreboot.org
> Subject: [TF-A] [LPC] Bootloader miniconf
>
> Hi,
>
> I was pondering whether it would make sense to organize a bootloader
> miniconf at Linux Plumbers [1]. The Linux kernel is what we often start, the
> bootloader projects generally do similar things, hence I think being able to
> meet face-to-face and discuss how to make things better/nicer would be
> beneficial.
>
> Feel free to expand the CC list to other interested parties.
>
> Thoughts ?
>
> [1] https://www.linuxplumbersconf.org/
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Marek Vasut
> --
> TF-A mailing list
> TF-A(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a
Hi,
I was pondering whether it would make sense to organize a bootloader
miniconf at Linux Plumbers [1]. The Linux kernel is what we often start,
the bootloader projects generally do similar things, hence I think being
able to meet face-to-face and discuss how to make things better/nicer
would be beneficial.
Feel free to expand the CC list to other interested parties.
Thoughts ?
[1] https://www.linuxplumbersconf.org/
--
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
The shared Mbed TLS heap feature has a default implementation (weak
function) that will soon be removed: plat_get_mbedtls_heap(). This is
part of the general effort to avoid using weak functions in generic
code. As a result, the implementation of this function becomes mandatory
when supporting Trusted Board Boot.
The corresponding patch can be found here:
https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a/+/841
The fact that the implementation of plat_get_mbedtls_heap() becomes
mandatory will break compatibility with platforms not implementing a
strong version of the function.
Upstream platforms are taken care of in the above patch.
Downstream platforms will break, but it is easy to fix.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
Hi Abel,
Thanks for the RFC. On the face of it, this is a new PSCI command that would need further discussion involving Architecture and Kernel teams.
Just to summarize my understanding:
Currently any interrupt targeted to a suspended core can wake it up, but it seems that this mechanism is broken on i.MX8MQ and hence you need an explicit command to wake it. This assumes that one CPU is always ON within the system ready to poke the suspended CPU back to life. This assumption is not true always as it is legal for all the CPUs to be in suspend state at the same time.
Adding the kernel team for their input.
JFYI, We do not intend to review patches via the mailing list and patches should be pushed as mentioned here:
https://github.com/ARM-software/arm-trusted-firmware/blob/master/contributi…
Currently the project is in github but we expect to migrate to trustedfirmware.org in April.
Best Regards
Soby Mathew
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Abel Vesa
> via TF-A
> Sent: 27 March 2019 12:16
> To: tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> Subject: [TF-A] [RFC 0/2] psci: Add core wakeup operation
>
> This is more like a workaround for platforms like i.MX8MQ that have an issue
> related to the wake_request GIC signal integration.
>
> See E11171 here:
> https://www.nxp.com/docs/en/errata/IMX8MDQLQ_0N14W.pdf
>
> The workaround mentioned in the document has the dissadvantage of waking
> up all the sleeping cores instead of just one.
>
> This patchset adds another psci op for core 'poking' (waking up).
> On i.MX8MQ, the plat specific implementation writes the corresponding bits in
> GPC to wake up independently each core.
>
> Abel Vesa (2):
> psci: Add cpu wake operation
> plat: imx8mq: Trigger SW power up per core
>
> include/lib/psci/psci.h | 3 +++
> lib/psci/psci_main.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> lib/psci/psci_setup.c | 2 ++
> plat/imx/imx8m/imx8mq/gpc.c | 7 +++++++
> plat/imx/imx8m/imx8mq/imx8mq_psci.c | 8 ++++++++
> plat/imx/imx8m/include/gpc.h | 2 ++
> 6 files changed, 39 insertions(+)
>
> --
> 2.7.4
>
> --
> TF-A mailing list
> TF-A(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a
This is more like a workaround for platforms like i.MX8MQ that have
an issue related to the wake_request GIC signal integration.
See E11171 here: https://www.nxp.com/docs/en/errata/IMX8MDQLQ_0N14W.pdf
The workaround mentioned in the document has the dissadvantage of waking
up all the sleeping cores instead of just one.
This patchset adds another psci op for core 'poking' (waking up).
On i.MX8MQ, the plat specific implementation writes the corresponding
bits in GPC to wake up independently each core.
Abel Vesa (2):
psci: Add cpu wake operation
plat: imx8mq: Trigger SW power up per core
include/lib/psci/psci.h | 3 +++
lib/psci/psci_main.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
lib/psci/psci_setup.c | 2 ++
plat/imx/imx8m/imx8mq/gpc.c | 7 +++++++
plat/imx/imx8m/imx8mq/imx8mq_psci.c | 8 ++++++++
plat/imx/imx8m/include/gpc.h | 2 ++
6 files changed, 39 insertions(+)
--
2.7.4
Test reply.
On 06/02/2019, 12:55, "TF-A on behalf of John Tsichritzis via TF-A" <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org on behalf of tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote:
Dear all,
This is a test email. Please ignore it and sorry for the inconvenience.
Kind regards,
John
--
[cid:part1.F2AC7E65.FED3DCD0@arm.com] <https://www.arm.com/>
John Tsichritzis | Graduate Software Engineer
Email : john.tsichritzis(a)arm.com<mailto:john.tsichritzis@arm.com>
110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge, CB1 9NJ, United Kingdom
--
TF-A mailing list
TF-A(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a
Dear all,
This is a test email. Please ignore it and sorry for the inconvenience.
Kind regards,
John
--
[cid:part1.F2AC7E65.FED3DCD0@arm.com] <https://www.arm.com/>
John Tsichritzis | Graduate Software Engineer
Email : john.tsichritzis(a)arm.com<mailto:john.tsichritzis@arm.com>
110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge, CB1 9NJ, United Kingdom
> Has CMAKE been considered ? CMAKE should work equally well on
> windows(visual studio and Cygwin) and linux. You can create a new build
> system around CMAKE while keeping the current Makefile system alive, and
> deprecate it later, once the CMAKE based build system is stable.
>
> -Raghu
Thanks for the suggestion.
Does CMAKE support configuration system as well ? Another factor to consider is the familiarity of the build system with the community, and we think Kbuild would rank high on that.
Best Regards
Soby Mathew
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
