Attention is currently required from: Angel Pons, Arthur Heymans, Christian Walter, David Milosevic, Felix Singer, Julius Werner, Lean Sheng Tan, Martin L Roth, Nico Huber.
Maximilian Brune 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:
(2 comments)
Commit Message:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/74798/comment/8104d165_37668265 : PS5, Line 11: one boots into TF-A first and drops into EL2 for coreboot afterwards.
We have been supporting real, physical Arm hardware for over a decade, including commercial products numbering millions of devices.
To be fair they are all from one vendor (google). Correct me if I am wrong but the only ARM mainboard vendor we have is basically google (besides the dev boards like the pine and beaglebone stuff).
"we really need this SoC vendor secret sauce to initialize the platform which they are absolutely adamant they can't open-source or let us reimplement", as it is often with Intel (at least as far as they present it), for you it's more just a matter of "we only have existing closed source code for this right now and we don't have the time/manpower to port our silicon init to coreboot at the moment".
That is not true. We have the same problem that we always have with vendors. They are just not inclined to put more resources into open source (not because they can't but because they don't want to), which is why we want to bring coreboot closer to other vendors to make them aware that coreboot is more than a viable alternative/option. Google knows that for years but other vendors do not seem to be able to grasp it (on ARM).
My personal motivation is to get more ARM mainboard vendors into coreboot so that I can work on more non x86 related mainboards in coreboot. But don't get me wrong I don't want to throw more wood into the Fire. We discussed it enough by now and will be discussing it in the next leadership meeting anyway. That should be a given but I harber no hard feelings no matter which decision comes out of it.
Patchset:
PS9:
Maybe to differentiate this, we can go further than just making it a Kconfig option and actually a […]
I agree. I don't think it is wise to decouple it like that. Personally I don't want add more burden on our build system.