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