Attention is currently required from: Angel Pons, Arthur Heymans, Christian Walter, David Milosevic, Felix Singer, Julius Werner, Maximilian Brune, Nico Huber.
Martin L Roth has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/74798?usp=email )
Change subject: arch/arm64: Add EL1/EL2/EL3 support for arm64 ......................................................................
Patch Set 9:
(1 comment)
Patchset:
PS9: We're going to discuss this at the upcoming leadership meeting. If you want to put thoughts into the agenda ahead of time or discuss it on the thread on the mailing list, that'd be appreciated.
My thoughts, which I'll add to the agenda document:
1) This is taking a piece of coreboot and using it in a different way than normal. I recommended on the mailing list that we call this flow something other than just "coreboot' so as not to confuse things or dilute the meaning of what coreboot is. Maybe "ATF with coreboot technology" or something.
2) This allows us to expose coreboot to people who would otherwise be using a completely different solution. That's a *really* good thing in my opinion.
3) We should try to be a good player in the open source firmware space and work with other projects to create solutions. If this means using pieces of coreboot, I'm all for it, similar to wanting to be able to take pieces of other projects and use them to extend coreboot's functionality. Sure, we could block it here and force it to be forked, but that doesn't really help anyone.
4) Maybe to differentiate this, we can go further than just making it a Kconfig option and actually add a new makefile target. That would make it even more plain that this isn't the full coreboot build.
If you look at this solely from the perspective of it being an alternate build of coreboot, maybe it doesn't make sense, but I don't think that's the perspective we should take.