[TF-TSC] Trusted Firmware TSC 16th April - Minutes
bill.fletcher at linaro.org
Fri Apr 17 13:59:08 UTC 2020
Ruchika Gupta (NXP)
Andrej Butok (NXP)
Abhishek Pandit (Arm)
Kevin Townsend (Linaro)
Joakim Bech (Linaro)
Christian Daudt (Cypress/Infineon)
Eric FInco (ST)
Julius Werner (Google)
Mark Grosen (TI)
Bill Mills (TI)
David Brown (Linaro)
Bill Fletcher (Linaro Community Projects)
AbhishekP: Action to follow up on TF hosting released PSA specification
AbhishekP: Action to check with Shebu if the roadmap included 1.0
BillF: Action to storyboard/mock up web page for next TSC
BillF: Action to check how to prepare the support of some member’s boards
in CI and come back to CD/EF
KevinT: Action/semi-volunteering to put some road-signs for helping people
moving from gitHub to gerrit
AbhishekP: Action to put the gerrit/GitHub issue on the agenda for next time
JB: Some practicalities around:
- Our mailinglists, Bill have created/enabled some already and I have a
discussion with Linux kernel developers regarding mailinglist for TEE
kernel discussions. I can give a 2 minute update on this.
- OP-TEE transition, I've tried to clean-up and redirect everything from
Linaro to TrustedFirmware.org. Yet another 2 minute update.
BF: All lists have been created - see TF.org/contact for all (public ones)
JB: Suggested there should also be a tee mailing list in the kernel.
DB: Vger list?
JB: also cleaned up OP-TEE.org to use new mailing list and mention trusted
firmware where relevant
AP: Maybe we need an ‘all’ mailing list for process, otherwise getting 3
mails every time?
DB: In the kernel people are good at cross posting.
CD: Suggest to wait if there are more of these things and see if we need a
top level list
DB: May be unintended consequences.
AP: Leave it for now
JB: Bill also created op-tee-security list. Need to describe membership/use
DB: Has been done for Zephyr.
JB: Not the same as what was agreed with Dan
JB: Sandrine's maintainer / process proposal, do we want to have a
AP: Was a special TF-A Tech Forum call last week. Has incorporated the
suggestions from the list and forum. Would anyone want us not to formalize
CD: In principle?
AP: Sandrine published the updates she got. Suggest she finalises with each
contributor rather than continuing to blast it to the list.
EF: -Some time ago, you asked for feedback on trustedfirmware.org website
and BillF created a wiki document to capture comments =
https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/collaboration/website/ I have
edited it with some comments and proposals.
EF: could have per project logos routing people to mini-sites per project
AP: Initial project landing pages often have member logos.
EF: Dashboard is confusing - not analytics. Also different between TF-A and
TF-M. Docs and wiki - not sure people visiting will understand the
EF: TF-M Wiki page is good. Could be mini-site entry point.
AP: Was looking at Apache since has multiple projects too
CD: Agree that the slicing is not good at the moment. People typically
coming in for a specific project. First item for each one could be a ‘start
here’ like Eric pointed out for TF-M
DB: Don’t want drop downs need to be clicked on - should just select by
AB: The PSA Specification is still under Arm. Also requires registration
and doesn’t inform you if there’s a new version. Could it be moved to
AP: Will check with Arm
BF: Not sure we can host it
CD: It’s a public spec - so could host a copy
AP: release versions could be ok but draft versions may be via a closed
AP: Action to follow up on TF hosting released PSA specification
BF: Action to storyboard/mock up web page for next TSC
EF: Furthermore, last time Dan proposed to discussed the tools used by the
projects (git, gerrit phabricator) and I see a link with the web site
improvement topic so if members of the TSC agree we may start discussing
this in today TSC
AP: Phabricator is becoming an overhead. Would be good if it was more based
on Sphinx/git. But some people do like the wiki.
RG: Any plans to shift op-tee from github to tf.org.
JB: Depends who - for me no.
RG: Expect any change?
DB: Gerrit seems to do better with long patch chains
JB: A lot of new stuff is being added on GitHub.
KT: Burden for new people getting a first patch in using Gerrit
CD: Standard ramp up for a new tool.
DB: But many more people using GitHub
KT: Could do a better job in the documentation (semi-volunteering to put
AP: Put the gerrit/GitHub issue on the agenda for next time?
EF: As now the budget for the next phase to TF OpenCI has been voted, do we
have an update on the execution plan and further to it how to prepare the
support of some member’s board (Christian and I made raised a question
pointing to it while reviewing Linaro proposal)
BF: Action: will check this explicit step out and come back to CD/EF
MG: How was the decision made to say TF-M is at 1.0?
AP: Think it was related to PSA specification.
MG: What’s the criteria for what is a version release?
AP: Action: Will check with Shebu since this would be published as the
roadmap. He joins the board but not the TSC. Think the roadmap included 1.0.
MG: Are we going to have a process for doing a release -
quality/features/bugs/benchmarks. Should be documented and reviewed before
JB: If nothing else need some kind of checklist so that it’s possible to
include new people’s participation in a release.
MG: Zephyr project has been looking at this quite a bit. Think we should
document a process for getting a release out. As people look at using this
MG: Prefer not to do it 5 times (for each subproject). At least a baseline
common across projects.
JB: This is what exists for the OP-TEE project, we wanted to make some kind
of "checklist" at some point also, to actually check off various items:
CD: There is the aspect what is the feature set - shebu has been putting it
together but don’t think we have a feature set to discuss/steer. i.e. what
is important. This is orthogonal to the release process checklist. Some
people sidestep this with a periodic release - either it made the release
or it didn’t.
EF: Semantic versioning?
AP: Was discussed but think we stayed with the TF-A versioning.
JB: Op-TEE follows semantic versioning.
AB: Difficulty to use Zoom from NXP. Have asked for an exception. Was
blocked today. Preference is MS Teams.
JB: Issue to find one tool that works for all. MS Teams is only free ‘for
BF: Hoping to progress on this in the coming days. Already other ongoing
discussions with NXP with respect to other Linaro meetings.
[image: Linaro] <http://www.linaro.org/>
*Bill Fletcher* | *Field Engineering*
T: +44 7833 498336 <+44+7833+498336>
bill.fletcher at linaro.org | Skype: billfletcher2020
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the TSC