Hi all,
Since I can't attend the design meeting (EMEA), I would like to add some use
cases and a suggestion for your guys' reference before this topic being
discussed:
We had similar needs (use cases) as Ashish like the following, so making this
code change would be definitely good for system vendors like us.
- Disabling a specific boot option like a PXE boot option for a
specific NIC port.
- Hiding a partition that is used for special purpose rather than
booting.
If we don't have a strong reason to prevent creating a platform hook function
(solution 5), I will prefer to use it because it is the simplest solution and
can be easily extended and maintained. Also, solution 5 is our current
implementation. We can even contribute our implementation to EDK2 if you guys
need it. Moreover, if we finally choose solution 5, I will prefer to create a
new platform library instead of adding a new function into the
PlatformBootManagerLib, and let this new platform library only be called by
UefiBootManagerLib. This would avoid a potential circular dependency problem.
For solutions 1, 2, 3, and 4, if I understand them correctly, they all require
making changes in the EfiBootManagerRefreshAllBootOption callers. UiApp may not
be the only application to call EfiBootManagerRefreshAllBootOption, so this may
cause additional maintenance effort. However, if we still need to choose a
solution other than solution 5, can we make the change directly in
EfiBootManagerRefreshAllBootOption instead of UiApp?
By the way, if we still need to discuss this further at a meeting, I will be at
the other design meeting (APAC).
Regards,
Sunny Wang
-----Original Message-----
From: disc...@edk2.groups.io [mailto:disc...@edk2.groups.io] On Behalf Of Jeff
Brasen
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 4:46 AM
To: Ni, Ray <ray...@intel.com>; devel@edk2.groups.io; Laszlo Ersek
<ler...@redhat.com>; af...@apple.com; disc...@edk2.groups.io
Cc: Ashish Singhal <ashishsin...@nvidia.com>; Wang, Jian J
<jian.j.w...@intel.com>; Wu, Hao A <hao.a...@intel.com>; Gao, Zhichao
<zhichao....@intel.com>; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kin...@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [edk2-discuss] [edk2-devel] [PATCH] Support skipping automatic BM
enumeration
Can we discuss this at the design meeting this week (12/12)?
Thanks,
Jeff
________________________________
From: Jeff Brasen
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2019 10:04 AM
To: Ni, Ray <ray...@intel.com>; devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io>;
Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com>; af...@apple.com <af...@apple.com>
Cc: Ashish Singhal <ashishsin...@nvidia.com>; Wang, Jian J
<jian.j.w...@intel.com>; Wu, Hao A <hao.a...@intel.com>; Gao, Zhichao
<zhichao....@intel.com>; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kin...@intel.com>
Subject: RE: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] Support skipping automatic BM enumeration
Yes, I think that would be good.
Summarizing everything in this thread
Problem: Platform needs to customize the boot options, this can be done for
normal boot but the UiApp calls EfiBootManagerRefreshAllBootOption in a couple
places.
Potential solutions:
1 - Define new PCD and event group if PCD is set true then signal event instead
of calling EfiBootManagerRefreshAllBootOption in UiApp
2 - Add new function to boot manager library and replace call to
EfiBootManagerRefreshAllBootOption in UiApp (need to coordinate rollout with
updates to all platform.
3 - Add new protocol with new function, if supported call this otherwise call
EfiBootManagerRefreshAllBootOption as is done now
4 - For 2/3 use generic function so we don't need new APIs for future expansion
5 - Update EfiBootManagerRefreshAllBootOption to call platform specific
function.
Thanks,
Jeff
From: Ni, Ray <ray...@intel.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 7:09 PM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Jeff Brasen <jbra...@nvidia.com>; Laszlo Ersek
<ler...@redhat.com>; af...@apple.com
Cc: Ashish Singhal <ashishsin...@nvidia.com>; Wang, Jian J
<jian.j.w...@intel.com>; Wu, Hao A <hao.a...@intel.com>; Gao, Zhichao
<zhichao....@intel.com>; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kin...@intel.com>
Subject: RE: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] Support skipping automatic BM enumeration
Jeff,
I think it's a good topic that we could discuss in the open design meeting.
Are you ok to present the problem you have and discuss the potential solutions
in that meeting?
https://github.com/tianocore/tianocore.github.io/wiki/Design-Meeting
Thanks,
Ray
From: devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>
<devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>> On Behalf Of Jeff Brasen
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2019 2:43 AM
To: Ni, Ray <ray...@intel.com<mailto:ray...@intel.com>>;
devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>; Laszlo Ersek
<ler...@redhat.com<mailto:ler...@redhat.com>>;
af...@apple.com<mailto:af...@apple.com>
Cc: Ashish Singhal <ashishsin...@nvidia.com<mailto:ashishsin...@nvidia.com>>;
Wang, Jian J <jian.j.w...@intel.com<mailto:jian.j.w...@intel.com>>; Wu, Hao A
<hao.a...@intel.com<mailto:hao.a...@intel.com>>; Gao, Zhichao
<zhichao....@intel.com<mailto:zhichao....@intel.com>>; Kinney, Michael D
<michael.d.kin...@intel.com<mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>>
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] Support skipping automatic BM enumeration
Thinking about this more I think we could do this with a PCD and a new group
event without having to define any new function interfaces.
We could change UiApp and BootManagerMenuApp (and any others that are relevant)
from
EfiBootManagerRefreshAllBootOption ();
to
if (FeaturePcdGet (PcdEventBasedRefreshAllBootOptionSupport) {
EFI_EVENT Event;
gBS->CreateEventEx ( 0, 0, NULL, NULL, &gEventBasedRefreshGuid, &Event );
gBS->SignalEvent (Event);
gBS->CloseEvent (Event);
} else {
EfiBootManagerRefreshAllBootOption ();
}
Then a platform that wants to do this on its own would just set this pcd and
create a group event and do what it needs to do there.
Thanks,
Jeff
________________________________
From: Jeff Brasen <jbra...@nvidia.com<mailto:jbra...@nvidia.com>>
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2019 5:00 PM
To: Ni, Ray <ray...@intel.com<mailto:ray...@intel.com>>;
devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>
<devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>>; Laszlo Ersek
<ler...@redhat.com<mailto:ler...@redhat.com>>;
af...@apple.com<mailto:af...@apple.com>
<af...@apple.com<mailto:af...@apple.com>>
Cc: Ashish Singhal <ashishsin...@nvidia.com<mailto:ashishsin...@nvidia.com>>;
Wang, Jian J <jian.j.w...@intel.com<mailto:jian.j.w...@intel.com>>; Wu, Hao A
<hao.a...@intel.com<mailto:hao.a...@intel.com>>; Gao, Zhichao
<zhichao....@intel.com<mailto:zhichao....@intel.com>>; Kinney, Michael D
<michael.d.kin...@intel.com<mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>>
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] Support skipping automatic BM enumeration
I am not sure a PCD would work (unless I am missing something) We do want to do
a connect all and re-enumerate in UiApp but we need the platform code to be
involved in that process.
Thanks,
Jeff
________________________________
From: Ni, Ray <ray...@intel.com<mailto:ray...@intel.com>>
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2019 4:58 PM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>
<devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>>; Jeff Brasen
<jbra...@nvidia.com<mailto:jbra...@nvidia.com>>; Laszlo Ersek
<ler...@redhat.com<mailto:ler...@redhat.com>>;
af...@apple.com<mailto:af...@apple.com>
<af...@apple.com<mailto:af...@apple.com>>
Cc: Ashish Singhal <ashishsin...@nvidia.com<mailto:ashishsin...@nvidia.com>>;
Wang, Jian J <jian.j.w...@intel.com<mailto:jian.j.w...@intel.com>>; Wu, Hao A
<hao.a...@intel.com<mailto:hao.a...@intel.com>>; Gao, Zhichao
<zhichao....@intel.com<mailto:zhichao....@intel.com>>; Kinney, Michael D
<michael.d.kin...@intel.com<mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>>
Subject: RE: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] Support skipping automatic BM enumeration
Jeff,
If adding a PCD to control UiApp can meet the real needs, I prefer to do in
that way instead of adding new APIs to PlatformBootManagerLib.
Thanks,
Ray
From: devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>
<devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>> On Behalf Of Jeff Brasen
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 6:58 AM
To: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com<mailto:ler...@redhat.com>>; Ni, Ray
<ray...@intel.com<mailto:ray...@intel.com>>;
devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>;
af...@apple.com<mailto:af...@apple.com>
Cc: Ashish Singhal <ashishsin...@nvidia.com<mailto:ashishsin...@nvidia.com>>;
Wang, Jian J <jian.j.w...@intel.com<mailto:jian.j.w...@intel.com>>; Wu, Hao A
<hao.a...@intel.com<mailto:hao.a...@intel.com>>; Gao, Zhichao
<zhichao....@intel.com<mailto:zhichao....@intel.com>>; Kinney, Michael D
<michael.d.kin...@intel.com<mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>>
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] Support skipping automatic BM enumeration
If we are concerned about deploying this and breaking builds we could do this
via a new protocol instead. In that case though we would leave the old default
behavior in the code to handle platforms that didn't implement the new
protocol, so this might not be the cleanest way to deploy this.
We could also look at adding a generic platform boot hook function (either as a
library function or protocol) if we wanted to limit the number of disruption on
new customization hooks. Something like
EFI_STATUS PlatformBootNotify (CONST EFI_GUID *NotificationType, VOID
*ContextData OPTIONAL)
Where Notification type describes where we are that we want platform to
potentially handle and ContextData is per type caller allocated data that
provides additional in/out data. This has the same issue of leaving the current
default behavior in place for unsupported types as well as being a less than
specific function to describe.
Thanks,
Jeff
________________________________
From: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com<mailto:ler...@redhat.com>>
Sent: Friday, November 8, 2019 9:37 AM
To: Jeff Brasen <jbra...@nvidia.com<mailto:jbra...@nvidia.com>>; Ni, Ray
<ray...@intel.com<mailto:ray...@intel.com>>;
devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>
<devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>>;
af...@apple.com<mailto:af...@apple.com>
<af...@apple.com<mailto:af...@apple.com>>
Cc: Ashish Singhal <ashishsin...@nvidia.com<mailto:ashishsin...@nvidia.com>>;
Wang, Jian J <jian.j.w...@intel.com<mailto:jian.j.w...@intel.com>>; Wu, Hao A
<hao.a...@intel.com<mailto:hao.a...@intel.com>>; Gao, Zhichao
<zhichao....@intel.com<mailto:zhichao....@intel.com>>; Kinney, Michael D
<michael.d.kin...@intel.com<mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>>
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] Support skipping automatic BM enumeration
On 11/07/19 18:46, Jeff Brasen wrote:
> Fixing UiApp seems reasonable, I do think we would want a hook to the
> platform library in here as the enumeration that occurs in the UiApp is
> intended to do a full enumeration of the system and there may be platform
> specifics to how that occurs.
Fully agreed -- entering UiApp should expose everything bootable in the system,
unless (perhaps) PlatformBootManagerLib specifically thinks otherwise.
Of course, then we arrive (again) at the problem that a call in
UefiBootManagerLib, to a *new* PlatformBootManagerLib API, will break tens of
out-of-tree platforms. :)
I think that can be prevented, as follows; but it will take quite some time:
- introduce the new function declaration in "PlatformBootManagerLib.h",
- modify all platforms (in tree and out of tree) to implement (define) the new
function,
- call the new function from UefiBootManagerLib
For some history / background on this kind of problem, I suggest reading
through:
https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=982
Thanks,
Laszlo
> From: Ni, Ray <ray...@intel.com<mailto:ray...@intel.com>>
> Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2019 12:21 AM
> To: devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>; Jeff Brasen
> <jbra...@nvidia.com<mailto:jbra...@nvidia.com>>;
> af...@apple.com<mailto:af...@apple.com>
> Cc: Ashish Singhal
> <ashishsin...@nvidia.com<mailto:ashishsin...@nvidia.com>>; Laszlo
> Ersek <ler...@redhat.com<mailto:ler...@redhat.com>>; Wang, Jian J
> <jian.j.w...@intel.com<mailto:jian.j.w...@intel.com>>; Wu, Hao A
> <hao.a...@intel.com<mailto:hao.a...@intel.com>>; Gao, Zhichao
> <zhichao....@intel.com<mailto:zhichao....@intel.com>>; Kinney, Michael
> D <michael.d.kin...@intel.com<mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>>
> Subject: RE: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] Support skipping automatic BM
> enumeration
>
> I treat the issue in this way:
>
> 1. Platform Boot Manager library does a good job. It doesn't always call
> RefreshAll() API to auto-create the boot options
> 2. But UiApp doesn't. It constantly call RefreshAll().
>
> Do you think that we can fix UiApp instead? For example, introducing a PCD to
> control the boot option refresh behavior?
>
> Thanks,
> Ray
>
> From:
> devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:de...@edk2.gro
> ups.io%3cmailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>>
> <devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:de...@edk2.gr
> oups.io%3cmailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>>> On Behalf Of Jeff Brasen
> Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2019 3:02 PM
> To: Ni, Ray
> <ray...@intel.com<mailto:ray...@intel.com<mailto:ray...@intel.com%3cma
> ilto:ray...@intel.com>>>; af...@apple.com<mailto:af...@apple.com>
> Cc:
> devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:de...@edk2.gro
> ups.io%3cmailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>>; Ashish Singhal
> <ashishsin...@nvidia.com<mailto:ashishsin...@nvidia.com<mailto:ashishs
> in...@nvidia.com%3cmailto:ashishsin...@nvidia.com>>>; Laszlo Ersek
> <ler...@redhat.com<mailto:ler...@redhat.com<mailto:ler...@redhat.com%3
> cmailto:ler...@redhat.com>>>; Wang, Jian J
> <jian.j.w...@intel.com<mailto:jian.j.w...@intel.com<mailto:jian.j.wang
> @intel.com%3cmailto:jian.j.w...@intel.com>>>; Wu, Hao A
> <hao.a...@intel.com<mailto:hao.a...@intel.com<mailto:hao.a...@intel.co
> m%3cmailto:hao.a...@intel.com>>>; Gao, Zhichao
> <zhichao....@intel.com<mailto:zhichao....@intel.com<mailto:zhichao.gao
> @intel.com%3cmailto:zhichao....@intel.com>>>; Kinney, Michael D
> <michael.d.kin...@intel.com<mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com<mailto:m
> ichael.d.kin...@intel.com%3cmailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>>>
> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] Support skipping automatic BM
> enumeration
>
> The issue is there are some auto created options we do not want on our
> platform.
> Get Outlook for
> Android<INVALID URI REMOVED
> ei36&d=DwIF-g&c=C5b8zRQO1miGmBeVZ2LFWg&r=Z9cLgEMdGZCI1_R0bW6KqOAGzCXLJ
> UR24f8N3205AYw&m=tNOWNYcrAfOGKuSMyGZvQ46qeU3yiXGlPkDQK70Nshw&s=V7Nc8Wt
> ostFCvj8E2KL2RcggpHj8sblqsBrdrabOuoE&e= >
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ni, Ray
> <ray...@intel.com<mailto:ray...@intel.com<mailto:ray...@intel.com%3cma
> ilto:ray...@intel.com>>>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 6, 2019 11:59:31 PM
> To: Jeff Brasen
> <jbra...@nvidia.com<mailto:jbra...@nvidia.com<mailto:jbra...@nvidia.co
> m%3cmailto:jbra...@nvidia.com>>>;
> af...@apple.com<mailto:af...@apple.com>
> <af...@apple.com<mailto:af...@apple.com<mailto:af...@apple.com%3cmailt
> o:af...@apple.com>>>
> Cc:
> devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:de...@edk2.gro
> ups.io%3cmailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>>
> <devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:de...@edk2.gr
> oups.io%3cmailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>>>; Ashish Singhal
> <ashishsin...@nvidia.com<mailto:ashishsin...@nvidia.com<mailto:ashishs
> in...@nvidia.com%3cmailto:ashishsin...@nvidia.com>>>; Laszlo Ersek
> <ler...@redhat.com<mailto:ler...@redhat.com<mailto:ler...@redhat.com%3
> cmailto:ler...@redhat.com>>>; Wang, Jian J
> <jian.j.w...@intel.com<mailto:jian.j.w...@intel.com<mailto:jian.j.wang
> @intel.com%3cmailto:jian.j.w...@intel.com>>>; Wu, Hao A
> <hao.a...@intel.com<mailto:hao.a...@intel.com<mailto:hao.a...@intel.co
> m%3cmailto:hao.a...@intel.com>>>; Gao, Zhichao
> <zhichao....@intel.com<mailto:zhichao....@intel.com<mailto:zhichao.gao
> @intel.com%3cmailto:zhichao....@intel.com>>>; Kinney, Michael D
> <michael.d.kin...@intel.com<mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com<mailto:m
> ichael.d.kin...@intel.com%3cmailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>>>
> Subject: RE: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] Support skipping automatic BM
> enumeration
>
>
> Jeff,
>
> RefreshAllBootOption() only modifies/creates the auto-created boot options.
> For the boot options created by platform boot manager library, they stay with
> no one touches. And all auto-created boot options are appended in the end of
> boot option list (through BootOrder).
>
>
>
> From: Jeff Brasen
> <jbra...@nvidia.com<mailto:jbra...@nvidia.com<mailto:jbra...@nvidia.co
> m%3cmailto:jbra...@nvidia.com>>>
> Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2019 12:13 PM
> To: af...@apple.com<mailto:af...@apple.com>; Ni, Ray
> <ray...@intel.com<mailto:ray...@intel.com<mailto:ray...@intel.com%3cma
> ilto:ray...@intel.com>>>
> Cc:
> devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:de...@edk2.gro
> ups.io%3cmailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>>; Ashish Singhal
> <ashishsin...@nvidia.com<mailto:ashishsin...@nvidia.com<mailto:ashishs
> in...@nvidia.com%3cmailto:ashishsin...@nvidia.com>>>; Laszlo Ersek
> <ler...@redhat.com<mailto:ler...@redhat.com<mailto:ler...@redhat.com%3
> cmailto:ler...@redhat.com>>>; Wang, Jian J
> <jian.j.w...@intel.com<mailto:jian.j.w...@intel.com<mailto:jian.j.wang
> @intel.com%3cmailto:jian.j.w...@intel.com>>>; Wu, Hao A
> <hao.a...@intel.com<mailto:hao.a...@intel.com<mailto:hao.a...@intel.co
> m%3cmailto:hao.a...@intel.com>>>; Gao, Zhichao
> <zhichao....@intel.com<mailto:zhichao....@intel.com<mailto:zhichao.gao
> @intel.com%3cmailto:zhichao....@intel.com>>>; Kinney, Michael D
> <michael.d.kin...@intel.com<mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com<mailto:m
> ichael.d.kin...@intel.com%3cmailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>>>
> Subject: RE: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] Support skipping automatic BM
> enumeration
>
>
>
> As the suggestions below made sense, we updated our platform boot manager
> library to behave in this manner and for normal boots everything works well.
> However the UiApp and boot maintenance applications in EDK2 also call
> EfiBootManagerRefreshAllBootOption() when ever a user goes into the menu
> which will re-create the skipped boot options with no place for the platform
> code to intervene.
>
>
>
> What about a solution where we add a new Platform library function that
> allows for override of the behavior of BmEnumerateBootOptions? For example,
> either a function or protocol that takes the same parameters as this function
> and only if it returns NULL then we continue to the default enumeration code.
> Or a function call inserted at the end that would modify the load option
> array after the system does the standard enumeration.
>
>
>
> -Jeff
>
>
>
> From: af...@apple.com<mailto:af...@apple.com>
> <af...@apple.com<mailto:af...@apple.com<mailto:af...@apple.com%3cmailt
> o:af...@apple.com>>>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 6, 2019 9:20 AM
> To: Ni, Ray
> <ray...@intel.com<mailto:ray...@intel.com<mailto:ray...@intel.com%3cma
> ilto:ray...@intel.com>>>
> Cc:
> devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:de...@edk2.gro
> ups.io%3cmailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>>; Jeff Brasen
> <jbra...@nvidia.com<mailto:jbra...@nvidia.com<mailto:jbra...@nvidia.co
> m%3cmailto:jbra...@nvidia.com>>>; Ashish Singhal
> <ashishsin...@nvidia.com<mailto:ashishsin...@nvidia.com<mailto:ashishs
> in...@nvidia.com%3cmailto:ashishsin...@nvidia.com>>>; Laszlo Ersek
> <ler...@redhat.com<mailto:ler...@redhat.com<mailto:ler...@redhat.com%3
> cmailto:ler...@redhat.com>>>; Wang, Jian J
> <jian.j.w...@intel.com<mailto:jian.j.w...@intel.com<mailto:jian.j.wang
> @intel.com%3cmailto:jian.j.w...@intel.com>>>; Wu, Hao A
> <hao.a...@intel.com<mailto:hao.a...@intel.com<mailto:hao.a...@intel.co
> m%3cmailto:hao.a...@intel.com>>>; Gao, Zhichao
> <zhichao....@intel.com<mailto:zhichao....@intel.com<mailto:zhichao.gao
> @intel.com%3cmailto:zhichao....@intel.com>>>; Mike Kinney
> <michael.d.kin...@intel.com<mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com<mailto:m
> ichael.d.kin...@intel.com%3cmailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>>>
> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] Support skipping automatic BM
> enumeration
>
>
>
> Ray,
>
>
>
> Is there an obvious hook point we could point Jeff and Ashish at?
>
>
>
> Long term it would be a good idea to have a Wiki page to give some guidance
> on how to customize the BDS.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Andrew Fish
>
>
>
> On Nov 5, 2019, at 9:20 PM, Ni, Ray
> <ray...@intel.com<mailto:ray...@intel.com<mailto:ray...@intel.com%3cmailto:ray...@intel.com>>>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Andrew,
>
> I agree with your opinion.
>
> It's expected that Platform Boot Manager lib calls
> EfiBootManagerRefreshAllBootOption() only in full configuration boot path.
>
> The full configuration boot path is chosen when hardware changes
> happen. So it's not expected EfiBootManagerRefresh...() be called in every
> boot.
>
> So you could:
>
> 1. Delete the auto-created option pointing to LoadFile instance
> 2. Create your own one with customized description.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: af...@apple.com<mailto:af...@apple.com>
> <af...@apple.com<mailto:af...@apple.com<mailto:af...@apple.com%3cmailt
> o:af...@apple.com>>>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 6, 2019 10:47 AM
> To:
> devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:de...@edk2.gro
> ups.io%3cmailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>>;
> jbra...@nvidia.com<mailto:jbra...@nvidia.com>
> Cc: Ashish Singhal
> <ashishsin...@nvidia.com<mailto:ashishsin...@nvidia.com<mailto:ashishs
> in...@nvidia.com%3cmailto:ashishsin...@nvidia.com>>>; Laszlo Ersek
> <ler...@redhat.com<mailto:ler...@redhat.com<mailto:ler...@redhat.com%3
> cmailto:ler...@redhat.com>>>; Ni, Ray
> <ray...@intel.com<mailto:ray...@intel.com<mailto:ray...@intel.com%3cma
> ilto:ray...@intel.com>>>; Wang, Jian J
> <jian.j.w...@intel.com<mailto:jian.j.w...@intel.com<mailto:jian.j.wang
> @intel.com%3cmailto:jian.j.w...@intel.com>>>; Wu, Hao A
> <hao.a...@intel.com<mailto:hao.a...@intel.com<mailto:hao.a...@intel.co
> m%3cmailto:hao.a...@intel.com>>>; Gao, Zhichao
> <zhichao....@intel.com<mailto:zhichao....@intel.com<mailto:zhichao.gao
> @intel.com%3cmailto:zhichao....@intel.com>>>; Kinney, Michael D
> <michael.d.kin...@intel.com<mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com<mailto:m
> ichael.d.kin...@intel.com%3cmailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>>>
> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] Support skipping automatic BM
> enumeration
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 5, 2019, at 7:34 PM, Jeff Brasen
> <jbra...@nvidia.com<mailto:jbra...@nvidia.com<mailto:jbra...@nvidia.com%3cmailto:jbra...@nvidia.com>>>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Wouldn't having a variable that we create and delete on every boot put
> unnecessary stress on the SPI-NOR that the variable store lives on?
> What about the alternative approach where we allow the platform code to
> modify the attributes of the auto created variable to disable it with
> hidden/!active but still match for detection purposes so that it doesn't
> delete and recreate the modified variable each boot? That way all the logic
> on what to disable can still be in the platform code and all the existing
> logic in the boot manager can stay basically the same?
>
> What changes every boot that forces the variable to need to get modified?
>
> I would assume the NOR driver is smart enough to not update a variable that
> is not changing.
>
> The custom BDS could could only create the variable for this device if it
> does not exist.
>
> [JB] The current flow with no changes in the boot manager would be as
> follows
>
>
>
> 1. Scan for instance of the boot option in the variables
> 2. It will not be found, so create a new boot option store it to a
> variable and update BootOrder
> 3. Platform code runs creates the options for the boot option it wants and
> writes those to variable store
> 4. Delete/disable the boot option in the variable store
>
>
>
> When you reboot it won't find the variable so 1/2/4 will re-occur
>
>
>
> The code that does this (1/2) is EfiBootManagerRefreshAllBootOption in
> BmBoot.c
>
>
>
> If you modify the variable to disable it with hidden/not active it would
> delete that and create a new one as well as the code wouldn't recognize that
> is the same boot option.
>
>
>
> If however we modify EfiBootManagerFindLoadOption to not compare the
> attributes (at least allow for differences in active and hidden) then the
> when it refreshes every thing it would see the match and not delete/create a
> new variable in the store and thus we wouldn't have changes every boot.
>
>
>
>
>
> Jeff,
>
>
>
> Sorry if I'm a little off on the sequence of things as the platform I work on
> day to day has a custom BDS and does not use this library..... I though the
> patch changed BmEnumerateBootOptions(), so that is going to change how
> EfiBootManagerRefreshAllBootOption() works. I'd also point out the patch as
> given is invalid as it changed the behavior of the public library API for
> EfiBootManagerRefreshAllBootOption() [1] so for the patch to be valid it
> would need to change the comments to reflect the new behavior. This is kind
> of what Laszlo's technical debt comment was about.
>
>
>
> I think Laszlo advocated having the BDS platform specific code make sure the
> boot variables are in the correct state. That should happen before the Boot
> Manager code runs, and it is not clear to me why the Boot Manager could
> would need to run if you have a valid EFI nvram variable to boot from.
>
>
>
> I think the question is how is your use case different than the boot variable
> that Windows installs? If it works kind of the same way then the answer is to
> have the BDS platform specific code write the boot variable.
>
>
>
>
>
> [1]
>
> /**
>
> The function creates boot options for all possible bootable medias in the
> following order:
>
> 1. Removable BlockIo - The boot option only points to the
> removable media
>
> device, like USB key, DVD, Floppy etc.
>
> 2. Fixed BlockIo - The boot option only points to a Fixed
> blockIo device,
>
> like HardDisk.
>
> 3. Non-BlockIo SimpleFileSystem - The boot option points to a device
> supporting
>
> SimpleFileSystem Protocol, but not
> supporting BlockIo
>
> protocol.
>
> 4. LoadFile - The boot option points to the media
> supporting
>
> LoadFile protocol.
>
> Reference: UEFI Spec chapter 3.3 Boot Option Variables Default Boot
> Behavior
>
>
>
> The function won't delete the boot option not added by itself.
>
> **/
>
> VOID
>
> EFIAPI
>
> EfiBootManagerRefreshAllBootOption (
>
> VOID
>
> );
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Andrew Fish
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andrew Fish
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeff
>
> ________________________________
>
> This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
> contain confidential information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure
> or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
> contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original
> message.
>
> ________________________________
>
> >
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#52105): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/52105
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/68146043/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
