Attention is currently required from: Arthur Heymans, Christian Walter, David Milosevic, Julius Werner, Lean Sheng Tan, Martin L Roth, Maximilian Brune, Nico Huber.
Angel Pons 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)
Commit Message:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/74798/comment/d7b3cbf5_18ef7fbe : PS5, Line 11: one boots into TF-A first and drops into EL2 for coreboot afterwards.
I mean... […]
I agree with Julius, this is not the way forward. Although I don't really know stuff about ARM, I still feel that I should express my thoughts and feelings on the matter.
``` -- Starting with a rant is useful to vent excess emotions procedure Rant is begin ```
This approach feels like making coreboot bend over backwards just so that the SoC vendor can sell their chips as "runs open source firmware".
- "runs" ---> happens to work, but please don't look at the code - "open source" ---> may contain trace amounts of coreboot code - "firmware" ---> firmness is side-effect of old coreboot branch
``` end Rant; ```
On a more serious note, trying to convince SoC vendors to switch from TF-A to coreboot while having to strip down coreboot of its guts so that it works with the SoC vendor's TF-A blobs seems downright counterproductive to me. The end result is even worse than blobboot (coreboot, but with too many blobs), it's pretty much shimboot (blobs, but glued together with a bit of coreboot code).
This situation reminds me of some awful thing Intel once proposed: FSP-at-Reset. And I'm pretty sure nobody liked that.
-
Angel Pons (Code Review)