[PATCH v5 02/26] doc: Add documentation about devicetree usage

[Ilias Apalodimas]

Hi Simon,

[...]

> > >
> > > Why me? Perhaps Linaro could take this on instead of working in a
> > > separate tool and domain? You guys could really pull things together
> > > and reduce the fragmentation, if you took it on.
> > >
> > > Honestly it is hard enough to even get Linaro people to write a test
> > > for code they have written. What gives?
> >
> > That's completely inaccurate.  We've added selftests for *every*
> > single feature we've sent for EFI up to now.  Functionality wise the
> > past 2 years we've added
> > - EFI variables
> > - EFI secure boot
> > - capsule updates
> > - initrd loading
> > - efi TCG protocol
> > - ESRT tables
> > - RNG protocol
> >
> > 5a24239c951e8 efi_loader: selftest: enable APPEND_WRITE tests
> > 3fc2b16335721 cmd: bootefi: carve out efi_selftest code from do_bootefi()
> > 1170fee695197 efi_selftest: fix variables test for GetNextVariableName()
> > ce62b0f8f45f1 test/py: Fix efidebug related tests
> > 450596f2ac3fd test/py: efi_capsule: test for FIT image capsule
> > de489d82e3189 test: test the ESRT creation
> > 57be8cdce35 test/py: efi_secboot: small rework for adding a new test
> > e1174c566a61c test/py: efi_secboot: add test for intermediate certificates
> > 479ab6c17eda7 efi_selftest: add selftests for loadfile2 used to load initramfs
> >
> > and I am pretty sure I am forgetting more on functionality and selftests.
> >
> > So basically we've either contributed  new selftests for *everything*
> > we've or fixed the existing ones.  The only thing that's not merged is
> > the TCG selftests which are on upstream review.
> 
> Er, I didn't say or mean that no tests were written, just that there
> is too much push-back on it. Heinrich put a huge amount of effort into

There's no pushback at all, apart from the TPM one. (and for a very good
reason I've explained over and over again).   In fact we add the sefltests 
as part of our patchsets. 

> the tests and basically created a strong base for it. Congrats and
> huge kudos to him. As to Linaro, no offence intended, and it is great
> that all these tests have been added. Thank you for your efforts and
> it is very helpful. But I think you miss my point. Or perhaps you
> don't even agree with it? I sent an email about this on one patch just
> a day or two ago.

I guess you mean [1].  I've lost count of how many times I responded to
this. Threads [2], [3] and [4] are just a few examples,  so I just got
tired or replying the same thing over and over.

So bottom line, we are contributing selftests as always, we just don't agree 
with the way *you* want this specific TPM test, trying to force us into sandbox.
So instead of respecting what we have (which btw is acceptable from u-boot's 
perspective and cleans up a lot of the TPM crud along the way), you went ahead
making misleading statements on the selftests we contribute, in general.  What's
even more annoying is that, as I showed you, we pretty much add a selftest
for *every* feature we add.  Excellent ...  that's certainly ... encouraging ... and
very productive.

> 
> As to the leadership side (my bigger point), Linaro is leading us all
> down this fragmented path, with TF-A, FIP, more and more binaries and
> larger firmware diagrams. Or do you disagree with that too?
> 

Of course I disagree.  People decided not to use SPL for their own reasons.
I am certainly not qualified to answer why Arm choose to do that, but it seems
to be common nowdays (risc-v/OpenSBI). All Linaro is doing is making sure
U-Boot is compatible and remains the de-facto choice for embedded boot
loaders playing nicely with all the new FSBLs come up with.  If you
cosinder SPL and U-Boot the center of the known universe, we certainly view
things differently.  FWIW it's *our* work mostly that made U-Boot SystemReady
compliant, which is something Arm pushes for [5].

> I'm sorry if you find this a bit sharp. 

Which part? The first one wrt to selftests is not sharp.  It's
manipulative and utterly unacceptable for me, not to mention entirely
fabricated.

The latter on bootloading fragmentation, I am always happy to discuss.

> But someone needs to be
> pointing these things out. I don't know who else is doing so. ARM
> firmware has got noticeably more complicated and fragmented in the
> last five years, hasn't it? What can Linaro do to address that? I am
> very happy to help and provide part of the solution, but it needs a
> shared vision.

There's a TF-A mailing list, we can certainly engage there and try to align
our ideas/designs.

> 
> It's not even just a Linaro/ARM problem. On the x86 side it is fast
> becoming a living nightmare.
> 
> Perhaps the problem here is just the pandemic response and the
> inability for people to get into a room and brainstorm / collaborate /
> hack on ideas? I know you have made big efforts to engage, Ilias. We
> have spoken many times and I'm sure f2f would be easier.
> 



>
> It's not even just a Linaro/ARM problem. On the x86 side it is fast
> becoming a living nightmare.
>
> Perhaps the problem here is just the pandemic response and the
> inability for people to get into a room and brainstorm / collaborate /
> hack on ideas? I know you have made big efforts to engage, Ilias. We
> have spoken many times and I'm sure f2f would be easier.

Maybe,  hopefully travelling will restart soon.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/CAPnjgZ2mmcUKz0v=ysSvf17c6ab++-hEpO4rc0OeeAEz7pFA2g@mail.gmail.com/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/YVdlvpThuqr8jksL@apalos.home/
[3] https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/CAC_iWjLWxPyEwPpG7v=1U1sxLOD4LXF+Vm+cGTHom9Mpz9pAgw@mail.gmail.com/
[4] https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/YVGGRqgVAiHvd1aR@apalos.home/
[5] https://www.arm.com/why-arm/architecture/systems/systemready-certification-program/ir?_ga=2.140829686.578781084.1635493248-857780164.1580291819

Regards
/Ilias