From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751292AbbJCES1 (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Oct 2015 00:18:27 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-f179.google.com ([209.85.214.179]:36127 "EHLO mail-ob0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750698AbbJCESZ (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Oct 2015 00:18:25 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20151002173704.GD16538@pd.tnic> References: <1443733554-22743-1-git-send-email-hock.leong.kweh@intel.com> <20151002173704.GD16538@pd.tnic> From: Andy Lutomirski Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 21:18:05 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/2] Enable capsule loader interface for efi firmware updating To: Borislav Petkov Cc: "linux-efi@vger.kernel.org" , Matt Fleming , Roy Franz , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "Kweh, Hock Leong" , Ong Boon Leong , James Bottomley , Sam Protsenko , Linux FS Devel , Fleming Matt , LKML , Peter Jones Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Oct 2, 2015 10:37 AM, "Borislav Petkov" wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 05:05:52AM +0800, Kweh, Hock Leong wrote: > > From: "Kweh, Hock Leong" > > > > Dear maintainers & communities, > > > > This patchset is created on top of Matt's patchset: > > 1.)https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/7/390 > > "[PATCH 1/2] efi: Move efi_status_to_err() to efi.h" > > 2.)https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/7/391 > > "[PATCH 2/2] efi: Capsule update support" > > > > It expose a misc char interface for user to upload the capsule binary and > > calling efi_capsule_update() API to pass the binary to EFI firmware. > > > > The steps to update efi firmware are: > > 1.) cat firmware.cap > /dev/efi_capsule_loader > > 2.) reboot > > > > Any failed upload error message will be returned while doing "cat" through > > Write() function call. > > > > Tested the code with Intel Quark Galileo platform. > > What does the error case look like? A standard glibc message about > write(2) failing? > close(2), right? --Andy