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 5C192C433F5 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 05:45:18 +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 AA98160F4B for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 05:45:17 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org AA98160F4B 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 131F583480; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 07:45:15 +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="uwexDndo"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by phobos.denx.de (Postfix, from userid 109) id 5014183564; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 07:45:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-ed1-x52c.google.com (mail-ed1-x52c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52c]) (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 9976C8331B for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 07:45:09 +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-ed1-x52c.google.com with SMTP id ee16so21609316edb.10 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 22:45:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=QBOxN8jBhK4L6IDkHWhNL/i2ouqeYQMKomc2u1t131E=; b=uwexDndow9/j8mHrmye9OTAMk1g8JiYvxGr4I3m0xClejqMQSitxegYCU0IFPylX+6 vu2/Qqd54dit4TbVNYouJQ2ulMCnBzK37dEFXOACyvQcBR9frJY7Xz3pPW3pY/QvRv69 GVqOKOgYrRgGoixQbHaglK/okLMgTtP8rPvqhxPrAaTlHIfB9Ys3k+bkH1S1IfLg8JV0 ad2ZHuXeXCDr/IobGRypickHiVB0unsgtXN60gIx/HtuTDamJLNWNh04PN8SVuSLVMbq uLOKGXxhgOTuYTVDUQ3jo7VLsa3vnZJnQC5Bl1lFJ/KlI4YTDDDX1x/pwnHKuz0xbd+e f7yQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=QBOxN8jBhK4L6IDkHWhNL/i2ouqeYQMKomc2u1t131E=; b=lSZ36tc7kmNXFJs6L13dGfSvFTTPYcOLDRGXbrotpTQFVbrmJtc107mT3vlkmrYXSP O3I6er66rpz/u1nRyCL4SEhqkziB/sEqN7k1DUJlOThvqBKjultpkmewaXPVNzqw0Z4j bQVVSi6pIE9Z0c1L4AeXaDrexGm20QSvx/SNTEfapMS9BdOB13DyS0jamYLmDUghYoMT aSKd6Lpz8dCmYqP/pf29A/NJ7VqbYPbSEuJM1X2gvycAdhp5rAT2I1uDpfjhic07E7eB 26B8nzft/63uQcbeKnmtwayqUSe1jsAccv3yYbAIVCrzf8miy1e2qBHUWZlPM6jspp8h 8Wjg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530mzFNktCkqyh5T9krPjULowErqCdkoi73aUqpA8OliJqz8AlSm xeOn+Wsuqjn3fV7QE8pY9ELnAQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxGGaxPu3qXFBzVZhlooTNF5q9w0EsLt0I9Tx2FASHvB3P13+9rnjdngMq/5/Ekcoj78gnFtQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:d0a:: with SMTP id eb10mr12219131edb.292.1635486309234; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 22:45:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from apalos.home (ppp-94-66-220-13.home.otenet.gr. [94.66.220.13]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ay9sm2861192edb.95.2021.10.28.22.45.07 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 28 Oct 2021 22:45:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 08:45:06 +0300 From: Ilias Apalodimas To: Simon Glass Cc: U-Boot Mailing List , Michal Simek , Heinrich Schuchardt , Tom Rini , Daniel Schwierzeck , Steffen Jaeckel , Marek =?iso-8859-1?Q?Beh=FAn?= , Lukas Auer , Dennis Gilmore Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 31/41] bootstd: Add an implementation of EFI boot Message-ID: References: <20211023232635.9195-1-sjg@chromium.org> <20211023232635.9195-22-sjg@chromium.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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 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? Regards /Ilias > But we do need to provide the existing functionality for now, as I > understand it. > > > > This series is about replacing the scripts we currently have with a > > > proper C implementation that uses driver model. > > > > > Regards, > Simon