On Tue, 2019-06-25 at 09:56 +, Ni, Ray wrote:
> David,
> Thanks for pointing that patch.
>
> Now I understand it.
> Normally it's the CSM16 code that builds the boot descriptions for legacy
> boot options
> and LegacyBootManagerLib consumes that boot descriptions.
>
> But in your case,
oups.io On Behalf Of David
> Woodhouse
> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 5:29 PM
> To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Ni, Ray ; ler...@redhat.com
> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH 6/7] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib:
> describe VirtIO devices correctly
>
> On Tue, 2019-06-25 at 09:15 +00
On Tue, 2019-06-25 at 09:15 +, Ni, Ray wrote:
> But I still need to understand why the *GetBootOption() API is needed.
> Because for quite a long time since the MdeModulePkg/Bds was added, there is
> no
> such requirement.
It's for CSM, because otherwise all the legacy boot targets other
, Ray ; ler...@redhat.com
> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH 6/7] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib:
> describe VirtIO devices correctly
>
> On Tue, 2019-06-25 at 08:06 +, Ni, Ray wrote:
> > The *Register* API was invented to handle the situation that platform
> wants
> > to
On Tue, 2019-06-25 at 08:06 +, Ni, Ray wrote:
> The *Register* API was invented to handle the situation that platform wants
> to have a special name for certain boot options.
> I think you can use that.
Except didn't I just agree to stop calling those registered handlers
from the exported
gt; To: Ni, Ray ; devel@edk2.groups.io; ler...@redhat.com
> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH 6/7] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib:
> describe VirtIO devices correctly
>
> On Tue, 2019-06-25 at 01:44 +, Ni, Ray wrote:
> > Can EfiBootManagerRegisterBootDescriptionHandler() be used t
On Tue, 2019-06-25 at 01:44 +, Ni, Ray wrote:
> Can EfiBootManagerRegisterBootDescriptionHandler() be used to extend the
> support for VirtIO
> in PlatformBootManagerLib?
Potentially although those are handled differently and not prefixed
with "UEFI " (or "Legacy " after my patch
>
>
> In general I think this approach is viable; at the worst we might have to gate
> the code with a Feature PCD. Let's see what Ray says.
>
> Thanks
> Laszlo
>
> > +Description = L"VirtIO Device";
> > +break;
> > + }
> > }
> > +
> > +Description = L"Misc
On 06/22/19 00:31, David Woodhouse wrote:
> I know, I said it was Someone Else's Problem. But it annoyed me.
>
> My initial thought was to look for VIRTIO_DEVICE_PROTOCOL on the same
> handle but I don't think I can do that if I can't rely on VirtIO being
> present in the build. This will do.
>
I know, I said it was Someone Else's Problem. But it annoyed me.
My initial thought was to look for VIRTIO_DEVICE_PROTOCOL on the same
handle but I don't think I can do that if I can't rely on VirtIO being
present in the build. This will do.
Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse
---
10 matches
Mail list logo
