Re: [SPECIFICATION RFC] The firmware and bootloader log specification

[Frank Rowand]

On 12/4/20 7:23 AM, Paul Menzel wrote:
> Dear Wim, dear Daniel,
> 
> 
> First, thank you for including all parties in the discussion.
> Am 04.12.20 um 13:52 schrieb Wim Vervoorn:
> 
>> I agree with you. Using an existing standard is better than inventing
>> a new one in this case. I think using the coreboot logging is a good
>> idea as there is indeed a lot of support already available and it is
>> lightweight and simple.
> In my opinion coreboot’s format is lacking, that it does not record the 
> timestamp, and the log level is not stored as metadata, but (in coreboot) 
> only used to decide if to print the message or not.
> 
> I agree with you, that an existing standard should be used, and in my opinion 
> it’s Linux message format. That is most widely supported, and existing tools 
> could then also work with pre-Linux messages.
> 
> Sean Hudson from Mentor Graphics presented that idea at Embedded Linux 
> Conference Europe 2016 [1]. No idea, if anything came out of that effort. 
> (Unfortunately, I couldn’t find an email. Does somebody have contacts at 
> Mentor to find out, how to reach him?)

I forwarded this to Sean.

-Frank

> 
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> [1]: 
> http://events17.linuxfoundation.org/sites/events/files/slides/2016-10-12%20-%20ELCE%20-%20Shared%20Logging%20-%20Part%20Deux.pdf