From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 15:47:52 +0900
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 4/5] cmd: bootefi: run an EFI application of
 a specific load option
In-Reply-To: <3d7ae831-954a-4fa3-8232-1723059c7f32@gmx.de>
References: <20190115025437.11966-1-takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>
 <20190115025437.11966-5-takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>
 <97e4c587-2c18-7d5f-757d-1673aa981fd1@gmx.de>
 <20190227055836.GC20286@linaro.org>
 <3d7ae831-954a-4fa3-8232-1723059c7f32@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <20190227064750.GG20286@linaro.org>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 07:31:06AM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> On 2/27/19 6:58 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 08:30:50PM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> >> On 1/15/19 3:54 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> >>> With this patch applied, we will be able to selectively execute
> >>> an EFI application by specifying a load option, say "1" for Boot0001,
> >>> "2" for Boot0002 and so on.
> >>>
> >>>   => bootefi bootmgr <fdt addr> 1, or
> >>>      bootefi bootmgr - 1
> >>
> >> You already introduced the support for BootNext. So is there a real benefit?
> > 
> > This is a convenient way of running EFI application directly,
> > but I already removed this feature from the next version.
> 
> Please, remove 'run -e' instead because it cannot specify the device
> tree needed for booting ARM boards.

See my comment for patch#5 first.

> > 
> >>>
> >>> Please note that BootXXXX need not be included in "BootOrder".
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>
> >>> ---
> >>>  cmd/bootefi.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> >>>  1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/cmd/bootefi.c b/cmd/bootefi.c
> >>> index 3be01b49b589..241fd0f987ab 100644
> >>> --- a/cmd/bootefi.c
> >>> +++ b/cmd/bootefi.c
> >>> @@ -471,16 +471,15 @@ static efi_status_t bootefi_test_prepare
> >>>  
> >>>  #endif /* CONFIG_CMD_BOOTEFI_SELFTEST */
> >>>  
> >>> -static int do_bootefi_bootmgr_exec(void)
> >>> +static int do_bootefi_bootmgr_exec(int boot_id)
> >>>  {
> >>>  	struct efi_device_path *device_path, *file_path;
> >>>  	void *addr;
> >>>  	efi_status_t r;
> >>>  
> >>> -	addr = efi_bootmgr_load(EFI_BOOTMGR_DEFAULT_ORDER,
> >>> -				&device_path, &file_path);
> >>> +	addr = efi_bootmgr_load(boot_id, &device_path, &file_path);
> >>>  	if (!addr)
> >>> -		return 1;
> >>> +		return CMD_RET_FAILURE;
> >>>  
> >>>  	printf("## Starting EFI application at %p ...\n", addr);
> >>>  	r = do_bootefi_exec(addr, device_path, file_path);
> >>> @@ -488,9 +487,9 @@ static int do_bootefi_bootmgr_exec(void)
> >>>  	       r & ~EFI_ERROR_MASK);
> >>>  
> >>>  	if (r != EFI_SUCCESS)
> >>> -		return 1;
> >>> +		return CMD_RET_FAILURE;
> >>>  
> >>> -	return 0;
> >>> +	return CMD_RET_SUCCESS;
> >>>  }
> >>>  
> >>>  /* Interpreter command to boot an arbitrary EFI image from memory */
> >>> @@ -546,10 +545,28 @@ static int do_bootefi(cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int flag, int argc, char * const argv[])
> >>>  	} else
> >>>  #endif
> >>>  	if (!strcmp(argv[1], "bootmgr")) {
> >>> -		if (efi_handle_fdt(argc > 2 ? argv[2] : NULL))
> >>> -			return CMD_RET_FAILURE;
> >>> +		char *fdtstr, *endp;
> >>> +		int boot_id = EFI_BOOTMGR_DEFAULT_ORDER;
> >>> +
> >>> +		if (argc > 2) {
> >>> +			fdtstr = argv[2];
> >>> +			 /* Special address "-" means no device tree */
> >>> +			if (fdtstr[0] == '-')
> >>> +				fdtstr = NULL;
> >>> +
> >>> +			r = efi_handle_fdt(fdtstr);
> >>> +			if (r)
> >>> +				return CMD_RET_FAILURE;
> >>> +		}
> >>> +
> >>> +		if (argc > 3) {
> >>> +			boot_id = (int)simple_strtoul(argv[3], &endp, 0);
> >>> +			if ((argv[3] + strlen(argv[3]) != endp) ||
> >>> +			    boot_id > 0xffff)
> >>> +				return CMD_RET_USAGE;
> >>> +		}
> >>>  
> >>> -		return do_bootefi_bootmgr_exec();
> >>> +		return do_bootefi_bootmgr_exec(boot_id);
> >>
> >> Why not communicate via the BootNext variable?
> > 
> > I don't get your point.
> > BootNext and BootOrder are both defined by UEFI specification.
> 
> Instead of changing the interface of do_bootefi_bootmgr_exec()

Who care changing an *internal* function?

> you could
> simply set BootNext. Then the boot manager would pick up the option from
> the variable and finally delete the variable. This would result in less
> code.

No. Even with "run -e," BootNext will disappear after execution.
This is a requirement by UEFI spec.

Thanks,
-Takahiro Akashi

> Best regards
> 
> Heinrich
> 
> > 
> >>>  	} else {
> >>>  		saddr = argv[1];
> >>>  
> >>> @@ -590,7 +607,7 @@ static char bootefi_help_text[] =
> >>>  	"    Use environment variable efi_selftest to select a single test.\n"
> >>>  	"    Use 'setenv efi_selftest list' to enumerate all tests.\n"
> >>>  #endif
> >>> -	"bootefi bootmgr [fdt addr]\n"
> >>> +	"bootefi bootmgr [<fdt addr>|'-' [<boot id>]]\n"
> >>>  	"  - load and boot EFI payload based on BootOrder/BootXXXX variables.\n"
> >>>  	"\n"
> >>>  	"    If specified, the device tree located at <fdt address> gets\n"
> >>> @@ -598,7 +615,7 @@ static char bootefi_help_text[] =
> >>>  #endif
> >>>  
> >>>  U_BOOT_CMD(
> >>> -	bootefi, 3, 0, do_bootefi,
> >>> +	bootefi, 5, 0, do_bootefi,
> >>
> >> Why 5?
> > 
> > For additional/optional '-' and <boot id>.
> > But I removed this feature from bootefi.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > -Takahiro Akashi
> > 
> > 
> >> Best regards
> >>
> >> Heinrich
> >>
> >>>  	"Boots an EFI payload from memory",
> >>>  	bootefi_help_text
> >>>  );
> >>>
> >>
> > 
>