Hi.

2014-08-12 6:08 GMT+09:00 Tom Rini trini@ti.com:

I think there were a few other requests, off-list. Also, we might want to extend the deadline slightly as talks for the main event were just accepted/rejected so folks are now sorting out if they can go or not.

I will be in U-Boot mini summit 2014. I am thinking about giving a talk on Kbuild and Kconfig.

Kbuild - I think it is already stable enough, but I'd like to have a quick review of the big change we had in U-Boot in the past year.

Kconfig - We have just switched to Kconfig. I will explain how Kconfig was adjusted for U-Boot and why the current approach was chosen and then what will happen in the next phase.

BTW, I am not good at talking. Nor am I good at English. (I hope my presentation won't be a disaster...) But I'd like to challenge a new thing. Could you bear with me during a 20min slot?

Marek, thanks for pushing me to do it!

Hi,

On 08/12/14 03:49, Marek Vasut wrote:

On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 at 02:02:55 AM, Masahiro YAMADA wrote:

...

Hi.

Hey, it's been a while :)

...

2014-08-12 6:08 GMT+09:00 Tom Rini trini@ti.com:

...

I think there were a few other requests, off-list. Also, we might want to extend the deadline slightly as talks for the main event were just accepted/rejected so folks are now sorting out if they can go or not.

I will be in U-Boot mini summit 2014. I am thinking about giving a talk on Kbuild and Kconfig.

Kbuild - I think it is already stable enough, but I'd like to have a quick review of the big change we had in U-Boot in the past year.

Kconfig - We have just switched to Kconfig. I will explain how Kconfig was adjusted for U-Boot and why the current approach was chosen and then what will happen in the next phase.

I absolutelly agree, this is a big topic and it should be certainly covered. Thank you for taking this up !

+1

Thanks!

...

BTW, I am not good at talking. Nor am I good at English. (I hope my presentation won't be a disaster...)

It's pretty OK, don't worry :)

...

But I'd like to challenge a new thing. Could you bear with me during a 20min slot?

If this was up to me, I'd be really happy if you got one slot for each of the topics ;-)

...

Marek, thanks for pushing me to do it!

Not sure what I did, but you're welcome ;-)

Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

On Friday, August 22, 2014 at 05:26:52 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:

Hi Detlev,

I'd like to have a presentation at U-Boot mini summit 2014.

------------------------>8---------------------------------------

Kbuild and Kconfig for U-Boot

Abstract:

U-Boot has had big changes on its build system in the past year.

Kbuild and Kconfig provide us a lot of benefites; however there have been various hurdles to overcome for switching over to the new infrastructure. Porting had to be done carefully, step by step so as not to break any exisiting features and boards.

This talk will explain how the migration was done, why the current approach was chosen and what will happen in the next phase.

------------------------8<-----------------------------------

I will need about 30 minites for this talk including discussion.

Count me in on this talk ;-)

btw. Tom etc., do we have some "list of talks" for the minisummit or some program for it available somewhere ? When is the deadline for CFP ?

Best regards, Marek Vasut

Hi Lukasz,

[...]

...

btw. Tom etc., do we have some "list of talks" for the minisummit or some program for it available somewhere ? When is the deadline for CFP ?

I would also like to pose this question. Is there any ongoing work on the minisummit schedule?

Yes, I'm collecting all information and will push it to the wiki.

Best wishes Detlev

On Monday, August 11, 2014 at 11:08:48 PM, Tom Rini wrote:

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 05:48:02PM +0200, Przemyslaw Marczak wrote:

...

Hello Detlev,

On 01/13/2014 06:12 PM, Detlev Zundel wrote:

...

Hi,

as already indicated, we are looking forward to our next U-Boot Mini Summit at Embedded Linux Conference Europe 2014 which will take place in Düsseldorf, Germany from October 13 - 15.

The call for papers of the main conference is now open[1] and if you want to submit a talk for the main tracks, you should note the deadline of July 11.

For our U-Boot Mini Summit, I'd like to get the schedule completed synchronized to the schedule release of the main event, which is August 12. So please submit talk proposals here with at least me on CC.

To coordinate the event better, I have setup another wiki page[2] that can and _should_ be edited by the interested parties. Feel free for example to add yourself to the "interested participants" so that we get an idea of how many of the U-Boot developers will be there.

Best wishes

Detlev

[1] http://events.linuxfoundation.org/events/embedded-linux-conference-euro pe/program/cfp [2] http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/MiniSummitELCE2014

Tomorrow is the last day of submitting the talk proposals for U-Boot Mini Summit, but there was no response for your e-mail and also there are no topics on the wiki site.

So, will be there only an open discussion?

I think there were a few other requests, off-list. Also, we might want to extend the deadline slightly as talks for the main event were just accepted/rejected so folks are now sorting out if they can go or not.

Hi all,

I got my talk, "Secure and flexible boot with U-Boot bootloader", accepted for the main track it seems. It's mostly about "use fitImage and use UBI on NAND" kind of talk, which covers introduction to fitImage and storing system components on UBI/UBIFS to prevent problems like silent data corruption on modern systems.

That being said, I believe I won't be able to cover the fitImage verified boot part properly, so I might as well cook a talk for the u-boot summit about this advanced topic.

What do you think ?

Best regards, Marek Vasut

On Wednesday, September 03, 2014 at 06:39:23 PM, Detlev Zundel wrote:

Hi Marek,

[...]

...

I got my talk, "Secure and flexible boot with U-Boot bootloader", accepted for the main track it seems. It's mostly about "use fitImage and use UBI on NAND" kind of talk, which covers introduction to fitImage and storing system components on UBI/UBIFS to prevent problems like silent data corruption on modern systems.

Excellent!

...

That being said, I believe I won't be able to cover the fitImage verified boot part properly, so I might as well cook a talk for the u-boot summit about this advanced topic.

We had a talk about that exact topic last year on the main track by Simon and in the mini summit by Jagan Teki[1]. In what respect will your talk differ from that?

I believe there is never enough advertising when it comes to fitImage, since we want to get rid of uImage. On the other hand, I see no point in artificially filling the talk slots, so consider my offer only as a backup solution.

Best regards, Marek Vasut

On Friday, September 05, 2014 at 05:50:47 PM, Scott Wood wrote:

On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 17:01 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:

...

On Wednesday, September 03, 2014 at 06:39:23 PM, Detlev Zundel wrote:

...

Hi Marek,

[...]

...

I got my talk, "Secure and flexible boot with U-Boot bootloader", accepted for the main track it seems. It's mostly about "use fitImage and use UBI on NAND" kind of talk, which covers introduction to fitImage and storing system components on UBI/UBIFS to prevent problems like silent data corruption on modern systems.

Excellent!

...

That being said, I believe I won't be able to cover the fitImage verified boot part properly, so I might as well cook a talk for the u-boot summit about this advanced topic.

We had a talk about that exact topic last year on the main track by Simon and in the mini summit by Jagan Teki[1]. In what respect will your talk differ from that?

I believe there is never enough advertising when it comes to fitImage, since we want to get rid of uImage. On the other hand, I see no point in artificially filling the talk slots, so consider my offer only as a backup solution.

Why do we want to get rid of uImage?

There is no longer much point in uImage other than the size of it's implementation. The code which handles the uImage format is smaller than the fitImage handler, since it doesn't have to deal with all of the DT stuff.

On the other hand, the fitImage is more flexible -- you can pack in multiple images , you can select stronger checksum algo than crc32 (which is important), you can sign it. The downside is that not many people even know of all these options fitImage gives them.

The uImage has been legacy for years now, it's not going away any soon, but we need to push for stronger adoption of the fitImage format. This is especially important if you are concerned about things like silent data corruption of the kernel image or protection against tampering.

Indeed, 'getting rid of uImage' might have been a bit strong wording, but eventually, uImage should be deprecated.

It's easier to work with than fitImage.

In which way?

Or do you just mean get rid of legacy multi-image support?

It worries me we even had something like that.

Best regards, Marek Vasut

Hi Tom,

On 5 September 2014 11:53, Tom Rini trini@ti.com wrote:

On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 07:30:35PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:

[snip]

...

...

It's easier to work with than fitImage.

In which way?

In most developer work flows at least zImage then uImage then fitImage are the easiest to work with, in that order, for ARM. For ARM64 Image in the next release will probably release uImage as the easiet to work with.

fitImage seems useful in a lot of deployment scenarios. Having to craft up a good skeleton device tree in most cases is an annoying to overcome barrier for a development workflow.

I wonder if we could easily address that by building in the functionality to mkimage? For the common case of a kernel, FDT and ramdisk I don't see why anyone needs to write a .its file. It's just boilerplate.

Regards, Simon

On 5 September 2014 23:23, Tom Rini trini@ti.com wrote:

On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 07:30:35PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:

[snip]

...

...

It's easier to work with than fitImage.

In which way?

In most developer work flows at least zImage then uImage then fitImage are the easiest to work with, in that order, for ARM. For ARM64 Image in the next release will probably release uImage as the easiet to work with.

fitImage seems useful in a lot of deployment scenarios. Having to craft up a good skeleton device tree in most cases is an annoying to overcome barrier for a development workflow.

Just an additional info:

In fact I was advertising a lot for this possible boot scenarios [2] talk in India last year other than U-Boot Mini 2013 starting from legacy to fit. What I understand that developers are very interested and they asked more possible useful scenarios with in the fitimage stuff like loading different kernels (as part of visualization) etc.

May it would be good if any one is interested to talk on that more.

[1] http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/OpenSourceIndia2013

thanks!

Hello Detlev,

On 08/11/2014 05:48 PM, Przemyslaw Marczak wrote:

Hello Detlev,

On 01/13/2014 06:12 PM, Detlev Zundel wrote:

...

Hi,

as already indicated, we are looking forward to our next U-Boot Mini Summit at Embedded Linux Conference Europe 2014 which will take place in Düsseldorf, Germany from October 13 - 15.

The call for papers of the main conference is now open[1] and if you want to submit a talk for the main tracks, you should note the deadline of July 11.

For our U-Boot Mini Summit, I'd like to get the schedule completed synchronized to the schedule release of the main event, which is August 12. So please submit talk proposals here with at least me on CC.

To coordinate the event better, I have setup another wiki page[2] that can and _should_ be edited by the interested parties. Feel free for example to add yourself to the "interested participants" so that we get an idea of how many of the U-Boot developers will be there.

Best wishes Detlev

[1] http://events.linuxfoundation.org/events/embedded-linux-conference-europe/pr...

[2] http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/MiniSummitELCE2014

Tomorrow is the last day of submitting the talk proposals for U-Boot Mini Summit, but there was no response for your e-mail and also there are no topics on the wiki site.

So, will be there only an open discussion?

Some time ago I've send a RFC: http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2014-May/179241.html

It was about PMIC/POWER framework rework - but I didn't have a time to work on it.

Simon Glass has done a lot of work by introducing driver model to serial and gpio last time, and I would like to rework PMIC drivers and pmic framework using the DM.

So, can I reserve about 30min slot for a discussion?

Best Regards,

I am sending my late abstract:

"Power(full) framework based on Driver Model - discussion"

Abstract:

There are lots of various Power Management IC's in the Embedded Systems nowadays. Each can provide the same functionality, like a voltage regulators, chargers, signal switches and some more - which are usually driven in a device specific way.

Beside the battery state, the current PMIC framework provides registers read/write operations only. So the user is obligated to check the documentation and set a specific value of some register to change the state of any regulator.

To solve the problem with driving common functionality - the Driver Model can be used.

The aim of this discussion is to present author's conception about how to use the Driver Model, and get the feedback from the listeners to introduce a common and functional framework architecture.

I suppose that I will need about 30 minutes for this discussion.

Best Regards.

On Thursday, September 18, 2014 at 10:52:12 AM, Alexey Brodkin wrote:

Hi Detlev,

On Wed, 2014-09-03 at 18:56 +0200, Przemyslaw Marczak wrote:

...

Hello Detlev,

On 08/11/2014 05:48 PM, Przemyslaw Marczak wrote:

...

Hello Detlev,

On 01/13/2014 06:12 PM, Detlev Zundel wrote:

...

Hi,

as already indicated, we are looking forward to our next U-Boot Mini Summit at Embedded Linux Conference Europe 2014 which will take place in Düsseldorf, Germany from October 13 - 15.

The call for papers of the main conference is now open[1] and if you want to submit a talk for the main tracks, you should note the deadline of July 11.

For our U-Boot Mini Summit, I'd like to get the schedule completed synchronized to the schedule release of the main event, which is August 12. So please submit talk proposals here with at least me on CC.

To coordinate the event better, I have setup another wiki page[2] that can and _should_ be edited by the interested parties. Feel free for example to add yourself to the "interested participants" so that we get an idea of how many of the U-Boot developers will be there.

Best wishes

Detlev

Sorry for my late input on this regard. But if there's still a possibility to have another talk I'd like to propose mine "ARC - new first-class citizen in U-Boot" (which was declined for main ELCE2014 event).

Abstract is in-lined below.

=================== U-Boot is a de-facto standard bootloader for Linux-driven embedded systems. It provides flexible means for loading kernel and if required image of filesystem from different media be it embedded non-volatile memory, attached storage or even network share. Linux kernel was ported to DesignWare ARC a while ago and starting from version 3.9 the port was accepted upstream. Now to enable real-life device booting on custom hardware decision was made to port U-Boot for ARC. This presentation unveils reasons to start the project, highlights milestones passed during porting process, touches some pitfalls and encourages more engineers and companies to use and contribute to U-Boot project. ===================

I'm not sure if this kind of speech is of any interest for existing U-boot developers, but I may indeed emphasize technical aspects now.

Any feedback is more than welcome.

If that's an introduction to porting U-Boot, it might bring to light some new ideas about the porting process and also point out some obstacles we were not aware of. I think it's a good idea to have such a war story ;-)

Best regards, Marek Vasut

Hi Alexey,

thanks a lot for your willingness to do the presentation at the mini summit. As I personally thik your talk fits our agenda pretty well and nobody has said anything different, it is therefore accepted.

Currently I plan for 20 minutes / 10 minutes Q&A slots, would this be ok for your talk also?

Do you guys want to get my presentation beforehand or I may just bring it with me?

It would be good to send a copy of the presentation beforehand just in case something breaks. Believe me - _something_ will ;)

Cheers Detlev

Hi Lukasz,

[...]

I'd like to share with the u-boot mailing list the proposal of my talk for u-boot's Mini summit in the ELCE2014.

Thanks a lot for the proposal.

__Mainline u-boot for Tizen 3.0 - “war story”__

Abstract:

Utilization of u-boot bootloader at Samsung's Linux powered platforms has a long history. For Tizen 3.0 the reference devices for mobile profile (RD_PQ and Odroid U3/X2) are due to run with u-boot developed with open source philosophy applied. It means that the code was developed, reviewed and tested first in the open source and then reused in Tizen.

Introduced changes to mainline code were minimal and only necessary for assuring backward compatibility. In his presentation Lukasz will briefly cover history and future plans of u-boot development for Tizen (as e.g. ongoing work on single binary for Odroid U3 and M0), explain key aspects of persuading community to accept solutions tunned for mobile devices, present remarkable u-boot's “war stories” and give a handful of tips for successful cooperation with community.

I would need around 25 minutes for talk and 5 more for discussion.

I really appreciate such a "war story" talk. Actually I tried nudging a lot of people to do such a thing but until now without any success - so I'm all the more happy to see it finally appear. I guess it will be very instructive to share such inside experience on how to integrate a decentralized open source component in a professional work flow. Such procedures have materialized around the Linux kernel, but the situation is not so clear in the bootloader area that has traditionally seen a lot of "fire and forget" strategies.

As I did not see any negative reaction to that talk, I'd say the talk is accepted.

Best wishes Detlev