# 2023-12-13 - coreboot Leadership Meeting Minutes
## Attendees Martin R, Werner Zeh, Christian Walter, Matt DeVillier, Felix Singer, Felix Held, Jay Talbott, Marshall Dawson, Simon Glass, David Hendricks, Maximilian Brune, Jeremy Compostella, Jonathan Hall, Karthik R, Nico H, Mina A, Lean Sheng Tan.
## Open Action Items
* 2023-12-13 * Patrick? FelixS?: Look at improving the responsiveness of gerrit. * Swapping issues? * Jenkins taking resources * 504 error code - 500 error code * Same patch pushed twice, same change-ID two different gerrit ids. * Patches showing up as open even after they’re merged * Move coreboot resources off of stefan’s server? * 2023-11-29 * [Open] FelixS: Draft a proof-of-concept proposal to switch to meson. * 2023-11-15 * [Done] Martin: Publish coreboot FAQ https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/79441 * 2023-11-01 * [Open] Martin: Shallow submodules - document & test, then update submodules if testing goes well. Additionally look at whether the .branch option helps. * No progress yet * 2023-10-18 * [Started](https://mail.coreboot.org/hyperkitty/list/coreboot@coreboot.org/thread/MMV2I... XKVCP3YIFJEE/) MattD and WernerZ: Work on compiling a list of website requirements from the mailing list. * No feedback yet - Matt will continue to gather feedback. * Probably have all of the community input - Need to capture the requirements as a starting point. * Move to next year. * [On hold] [pending requirements] MartinR & FelixS: Build a POC front page. * [Open] Arthur: Ask Philip about how to use company logos. * 2023-10-4 * [Started](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z8igNdgBG5_Qlr4kKRtlbpKaZo9RUghRqZjHUNUO...) Martin: Write a tutorial for gerrit - Feel free to help. * [Open] OSFF: Look into making a video about using gerrit. * Discussed with Christian who felt this was a good plan. * Look at next year. * [Open] Martin: Write a document about vendorcode submodules. * Not started * 2023-09-20 * [Started](https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/78832) Martin: Work on [clang-format config update](https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/78832). * We can use the clang format version from the coreboot toolchain! * Some issues with clang format - martin will present. * See [CB:78833](https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/78833) for what the current format’s changes will look like. * [David] #defines for bits in headers lose their indenting. Maybe we should have clang-format ignore headers for now. Smaller issues can be handled on a "use your best “judgement" basis. * [Done] Martin to add [bitfield](https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/78833/4/src/drivers/intel/gma/i915_...) example to 78833 * Let’s look at running this just for .c files to start with.
## Minutes
### [Martin] Covered open action items
### [Martin] Present Projects & RFCs list
### [Sheng] Decision for Bootflow on Arm64 Server * As mentioned in previous leadership meeting and a special meeting on 05 Dec 2023, the leadership team will make decision on going forward with the proposal here: https://mail.coreboot.org/hyperkitty/list/coreboot@coreboot.org/thread/BRW3Z... WM/ * We’re proposing that there are two additional boot flows added to Arm’s document. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1z3fLdUmbOBKvHJfub8ki9YWjuqpK_1PY0H4BWwm4...
### Decision * We’re agreeing to change the coreboot codebase to support the modified bootflow, based on the understanding that the standard coreboot arm bootflow will also be included. If that isn’t accepted, we’ll need to revisit this. If Arm agrees to include both boot flows in their document, we will get the patches merged, but we’d like an agreement from them before that’s done. * Nico: The secure monitor is still an issue. That’s not open source. * [Martin] But the secure boot monitor is not part of coreboot or even called by coreboot in the new boot flow. Let’s have a discussion about it, but there are other topics we want to cover in this meeting.
### [Martin/MaxB] Look at improving the readability of our build system * See https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/79230 - this combines a number of changes into a single patch just to see what things would look like. * Please take a look and voice opinions. * Some problems: * Makefiles at the directory tips frequently have `ifeq` blocks surrounding the entire contents. https://review.coreboot.org/plugins/gitiles/coreboot/+/refs/heads/main/src/d... * We probably shouldn’t indent the entire file. * To indent ifeq/ifneq/endif statements inside a target, we need to use spaces instead of tabs. This leads to an ugly mix of spaces and tabs, which can be confusing, and will break the build if it’s done incorrectly.
### [Martin] Cancel the December 27th meeting? * Cancel this!
### [PatrickG, Martin] How to present design proposals? * There’s some tension in the project between “folks write a whole new thingamabob and submit it whole to the project, then get indignant when the project doesn’t adopt it wholesale. To avoid that from happening, we discourage working like that” and “you want to do something? Build a prototype” * Should we document what we think is a good way to approach such situations? * With the example of “make a coreboot build system based on meson”, Patrick mused: “While we discourage folks from dumping a full solution on us, having a partial solution (and that should be more than a userland tool, because those are easy in meson) to offer a glimpse in how it should look is worthwhile. The problems arise when there's so much work sunk into it that rejecting it means rejecting a developer's work of months, which is why that's not a good approach to "dump code on us". * There aren't any hard & fast rules, but - "I got qemu to compile (typically the easiest target) and this is how it looks" seems like a good step in between. - If it takes months to get to that stage, it's probably not worth it, because whatever has been built in that time is as complex as what we have. - "I got qemu to compile, but don't mind the mess in most of the tree. I have a plan how it should look (see src/cpu which is more like it) but I wanted to prove the concept first" already offers something that can be discussed properly without costing too much effort. * Stefan offered that code can be published on Gerrit even when it’s not ready yet (and/or just a prototype). Gerrit does have a “Work In Progress” flag for CLs, after all, so there’s not necessarily a need to set up a branch for such work. * Flow: * Propose the idea to the mailing list * Present a draft * Do a small implementation (Qemu or similar) * Present an RFC * Review on mailing list & in leadership meeting. * ??? * Profit??? * Felixs: Start a forum? Replace the mailing list with a forum? * Felixh: We already have the bugtracker - it uses a different login than gerrit, so it’s already problematic to use. Let’s not create another. * Nico: The mailing list is the most accessible method. Everyone can participate well. * Felixs: Just looking at how other open source projects done today open projects on gitlab or github, and people discuss things there. People today are used to that. People don’t like writing emails. Modern solutions look nicer and are more accessible. * SJG: Mailing list is searchable and everything can be seen later. Other things are more of a walled garden. Replacing the mailing list would be a bad decision. * Nico: Forums are accessible only to people able to use a web browser. * This can at least be an example process, if not the only process.
### [Martin] review of “Setup Option Table” (placeholder name for what was CFR) * We’re more aligned with a build-time approach, with customization of the data structures in mainboard code. If this customization becomes commonplace, we can move functions into lib/sot or something. * Kconfig-based / data-serialization-language (like yaml, ~~cbor or protobuf~~)? * [Setup Option Table requirements](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WAc6k8k4hUhcUJl-hl9jUfEWhR3nONXbENqYJ2vA...) for *any* solution * Kconfig [Setup Option Tables](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TWbxKRhsTpid7xyK-yMdsxhfZxZtTTNCWsrO3xuN... h.astha87lu249) * Kconfig [Setup Option Table DSL](https://docs.google.com/document/d/18uApZbuvou9unlL8SdTZ4dTblHD2OGs_SgaTaWJc...)
### [Simon]: Serial RFC * The proof of concept is here https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/79317 Now updated to allow use of a CBFS file. * Does the -2 indicate that this is being killed? * [Martin] I don’t think so - I think Julius just wanted to prevent it from going in without agreement. I think he wouldn’t have made so many comments if he just wanted to kill it. * I’ve already stated numerous times that I don’t think that an option method based solely on including the configuration directly into bootblock is the right way to go about things. If we do pursue this, I’d like to be able to see the ability to add the CCB to a separate area in CBFS, which will be far more useful in the long-run, in my opinion.
# Next meeting * January 10, 2024. * [Meeting link](https://meet.google.com/pyt-newq-rbb) * [coreboot Calendar](https://coreboot.org/calendar.html)
# Notice * Decisions shown here are not necessarily final, and are based on the current information available. If there are questions or comments about decisions made, or additional information to present, please put it on the leadership meeting agenda and show up if possible to discuss it. Of course items may also be discussed on the mailing list, but as it's difficult to interpret tone over email, controversial topics frequently do not have good progress in those discussions. For particularly difficult issues, it may be best to try to schedule another meeting.
# coreboot leadership meeting minutes * https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NRXqXcLBp5pFkHiJbrLdv3Spqh1Hu086HYkKrgKj...