On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 08:30:50PM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> On 1/15/19 3:54 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> > With this patch applied, we will be able to selectively execute
> > an EFI application by specifying a load option, say "1" for Boot0001,
> > "2" for Boot0002 and so on.
> >
> > => bootefi bootmgr <fdt addr> 1, or
> > bootefi bootmgr - 1
>
> You already introduced the support for BootNext. So is there a real benefit?
This is a convenient way of running EFI application directly,
but I already removed this feature from the next version.
> >
> > Please note that BootXXXX need not be included in "BootOrder".
> >
> > Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.aka...@linaro.org>
> > ---
> > cmd/bootefi.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> > 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/cmd/bootefi.c b/cmd/bootefi.c
> > index 3be01b49b589..241fd0f987ab 100644
> > --- a/cmd/bootefi.c
> > +++ b/cmd/bootefi.c
> > @@ -471,16 +471,15 @@ static efi_status_t bootefi_test_prepare
> >
> > #endif /* CONFIG_CMD_BOOTEFI_SELFTEST */
> >
> > -static int do_bootefi_bootmgr_exec(void)
> > +static int do_bootefi_bootmgr_exec(int boot_id)
> > {
> > struct efi_device_path *device_path, *file_path;
> > void *addr;
> > efi_status_t r;
> >
> > - addr = efi_bootmgr_load(EFI_BOOTMGR_DEFAULT_ORDER,
> > - &device_path, &file_path);
> > + addr = efi_bootmgr_load(boot_id, &device_path, &file_path);
> > if (!addr)
> > - return 1;
> > + return CMD_RET_FAILURE;
> >
> > printf("## Starting EFI application at %p ...\n", addr);
> > r = do_bootefi_exec(addr, device_path, file_path);
> > @@ -488,9 +487,9 @@ static int do_bootefi_bootmgr_exec(void)
> > r & ~EFI_ERROR_MASK);
> >
> > if (r != EFI_SUCCESS)
> > - return 1;
> > + return CMD_RET_FAILURE;
> >
> > - return 0;
> > + return CMD_RET_SUCCESS;
> > }
> >
> > /* Interpreter command to boot an arbitrary EFI image from memory */
> > @@ -546,10 +545,28 @@ static int do_bootefi(cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int flag, int
> > argc, char * const argv[])
> > } else
> > #endif
> > if (!strcmp(argv[1], "bootmgr")) {
> > - if (efi_handle_fdt(argc > 2 ? argv[2] : NULL))
> > - return CMD_RET_FAILURE;
> > + char *fdtstr, *endp;
> > + int boot_id = EFI_BOOTMGR_DEFAULT_ORDER;
> > +
> > + if (argc > 2) {
> > + fdtstr = argv[2];
> > + /* Special address "-" means no device tree */
> > + if (fdtstr[0] == '-')
> > + fdtstr = NULL;
> > +
> > + r = efi_handle_fdt(fdtstr);
> > + if (r)
> > + return CMD_RET_FAILURE;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (argc > 3) {
> > + boot_id = (int)simple_strtoul(argv[3], &endp, 0);
> > + if ((argv[3] + strlen(argv[3]) != endp) ||
> > + boot_id > 0xffff)
> > + return CMD_RET_USAGE;
> > + }
> >
> > - return do_bootefi_bootmgr_exec();
> > + return do_bootefi_bootmgr_exec(boot_id);
>
> Why not communicate via the BootNext variable?
I don't get your point.
BootNext and BootOrder are both defined by UEFI specification.
> > } else {
> > saddr = argv[1];
> >
> > @@ -590,7 +607,7 @@ static char bootefi_help_text[] =
> > " Use environment variable efi_selftest to select a single test.\n"
> > " Use 'setenv efi_selftest list' to enumerate all tests.\n"
> > #endif
> > - "bootefi bootmgr [fdt addr]\n"
> > + "bootefi bootmgr [<fdt addr>|'-' [<boot id>]]\n"
> > " - load and boot EFI payload based on BootOrder/BootXXXX variables.\n"
> > "\n"
> > " If specified, the device tree located at <fdt address> gets\n"
> > @@ -598,7 +615,7 @@ static char bootefi_help_text[] =
> > #endif
> >
> > U_BOOT_CMD(
> > - bootefi, 3, 0, do_bootefi,
> > + bootefi, 5, 0, do_bootefi,
>
> Why 5?
For additional/optional '-' and <boot id>.
But I removed this feature from bootefi.
Thanks,
-Takahiro Akashi
> Best regards
>
> Heinrich
>
> > "Boots an EFI payload from memory",
> > bootefi_help_text
> > );
> >
>
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
