From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D62A3C433F5 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 13:43:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from phobos.denx.de (phobos.denx.de [85.214.62.61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5A1861100 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 13:43:35 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org C5A1861100 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linaro.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lists.denx.de Received: from h2850616.stratoserver.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by phobos.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFF2883390; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 15:43:32 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linaro.org Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="D/PpmVrr"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by phobos.denx.de (Postfix, from userid 109) id 1DA288342C; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 15:43:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-yb1-xb2c.google.com (mail-yb1-xb2c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2c]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by phobos.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12C9D8321B for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 15:43:23 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linaro.org Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org Received: by mail-yb1-xb2c.google.com with SMTP id d204so24331672ybb.4 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 06:43:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=mNUruBCBFxaMeqLysnLU8ca2L/pkIGI5JSDVP4y2Uo8=; b=D/PpmVrr2fIRrAPrOE5rEukIRwJPd9UKLIS2aCVoGfJ0Dt2Dcf6afWk1LsEGTH7qvK g/SY78CJDjpbzMVA6VpWN9hXw0M5U1UQtuQUUlAZG/5hsZ5J/H6KQ0nYYRvoeatWCJUZ t6PgOhdwhro5VjIp9iXwDPnzHM5BzalMvf1HS7ZAVXzwiLiU0bnHVkYxu/GgdjxVm+JW WQ4MeE3urSWmHq2QR/1JwRPLypfKyqbdeIGpNsRbapoi4nCAO9woR6OOzOUCvMHF6yxS 202Oi0MlwppsSaReCNmSaXl/hkilkAzxJtSaX0hfCdydDTQ9GkRanIpyLbmo4iMF/5BR DHUQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=mNUruBCBFxaMeqLysnLU8ca2L/pkIGI5JSDVP4y2Uo8=; b=pwXooMQFctXVo1D426/1Aa2bVYZPzvTboH1KFn2xc+PYYDkh77H5iNLPKxhfPcJQi2 G0LAxGNyAxUzFc6VtTqGUxBtOPK6J3PqNZauDAvk9Nu5MFvcYrsrSNdU9FrXe8XT7ZAu aIB9xI/kHbWNC4aPGA8Z0g2Wiy28B+HyI32uEe6dsw+CbyY3jH/X2+W3tS0O9FMTQz34 j7k7BVl7rg2KbIqcfIIySa1WkxZBiSNLMJAa+hSgdky8USshvG/AAFNFXoR3BuiZ9i7p TA/1nRW2ejkeHHlwls/ah5q5jopk4Dy9OKMA/IHBKG5p6R8FRUtdudeIyxxX+4hPuUnu 1n/A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532XG6x2ZKiLPvb/+ApnFBIRICnsBYrP7QWR58vMCFQsj3Csuk7R o0kGJIst8lW10A0hrGsibgXjnPegr/vTFe9V+zDlYQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJylZ+lazG0NgXSNYXae3Q86iyIzFf2MTeiwheSgPMJLhp2zlFV5pOXBbfbZmo6bBnULu3liuVMRdl7vB1NTikg= X-Received: by 2002:a25:c094:: with SMTP id c142mr3364748ybf.133.1635515001579; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 06:43:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20211023232635.9195-1-sjg@chromium.org> <20211023232635.9195-22-sjg@chromium.org> <20211029123907.GS8284@bill-the-cat> In-Reply-To: <20211029123907.GS8284@bill-the-cat> From: Ilias Apalodimas Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 16:42:45 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 31/41] bootstd: Add an implementation of EFI boot To: Tom Rini Cc: Simon Glass , U-Boot Mailing List , Michal Simek , Heinrich Schuchardt , Daniel Schwierzeck , Steffen Jaeckel , =?UTF-8?B?TWFyZWsgQmVow7pu?= , Lukas Auer , Dennis Gilmore Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-BeenThere: u-boot@lists.denx.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: U-Boot discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de Sender: "U-Boot" X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.103.2 at phobos.denx.de X-Virus-Status: Clean Hi Tom, On Fri, 29 Oct 2021 at 15:39, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 08:45:06AM +0300, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 12:34:40PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > Hi Ilias, > > > > > > On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 at 08:48, Ilias Apalodimas > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Simon, > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 08:09:04AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > Hi Ilias, > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 at 02:36, Ilias Apalodimas > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Simon, > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 at 02:27, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Add a bootmeth driver which handles EFI boot, using EFI_LOADER. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In effect, this provides the same functionality as the 'bootefi' command > > > > > > > and shares the same code. But the interface into it is via a bootmeth, > > > > > > > so it does not require any special scripts, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For now this requires the 'bootefi' command be enabled. Future work may > > > > > > > tidy this up so that it can be used without CONFIG_CMDLINE being enabled. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll leave this up to Heinrich, but personally I wouldn't include this > > > > > > patch at all. EFI has it's bootmgr which can handle booting just fine. > > > > > > I don't see why we should duplicate the functionality. The new boot > > > > > > method can just have an entry called 'EFI' and then let the existing > > > > > > EFI code to decide. > > > > > > > > > > This is needed so that EFI boot is actually invoked. If bootmgr starts > > > > > being used then it can still be invoked from standard boot. The point > > > > > is that there is a standard way of booting that supports EFI and other > > > > > things. > > > > > > > > This patch tries to reason about the default naming EFI imposes on it's > > > > boot files. distro_efi_read_bootflow() will try to find files following the > > > > EFI naming convention (e.g bootaarch64.efi, bootarm.efi etc). If those are > > > > found it will try to boot them right? That's not the right thing to do though. > > > > On the EFI spec these files are tried if no Boot#### variables are found. > > > > So we can get rid of this entirely, add a dummy entry on the bootflow that > > > > says 'boot the efi manager' (which is what the next patch does). > > > > > > > > The efibootmgr then will check Boot#### variables and if none are found, > > > > it's going to fallback into loading bootaarch64.efi, bootarm.efi etc > > > > essentially offering identical functionality. > > > > > > Yes that's fine, and when EFI's boot manager is in use I have a driver > > > for that too, as you can see in the other patch. We may need to adjust > > > the order, by the sound of it, if it needs to run before EFI things. > > > But that is easy enough. > > > > That's the point though. I don't want to have 2 different ways of booting EFI > > as I don't see any benefit. Do you? > > Unless we're saying that "bootefi bootmgr" is ready to be used always > and without further pre-req support (which I don't think is quite the > case, since we don't have persistent EFI vars, so can't set Boot### > persistently or via userspace) _something_ is likely needed to either > set those, or scan a configurable list of where, to find the EFI > payload. The efibootmgr will try to boot bootaa64.efi, bootarm.efi etc if Boot### variables are not found. The Boot#### themselves are obviously configurable from U-Boot(at boot time). Since this method doesn't allow Linux to edit the boot options either, is it something we need? Since distros usually name their SHIM as bootaa64.efi, I am afraid we are adding code that we will rarely (if at all) ever use. Regards /Ilias > > -- > Tom