On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 08:33:17PM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> On 2/27/19 7:47 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 07:31:06AM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> >> On 2/27/19 6:58 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> >>> 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, remove 'run -e' instead because it cannot specify the device
> >> tree needed for booting ARM boards.
> >
> > See my comment for patch#5 first.
> >
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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.
> >>
> >> Instead of changing the interface of do_bootefi_bootmgr_exec()
> >
> > Who care changing an *internal* function?
So do you agree?
> >
> >> you could
> >> simply set BootNext. Then the boot manager would pick up the option from
> >> the variable and finally delete the variable. This would result in less
> >> code.
> >
> > No. Even with "run -e," BootNext will disappear after execution.
> > This is a requirement by UEFI spec.
>
> Shouldn't BootNext always be reset when executing bootefi no matter
> whether the boot manager is used or not?
Didn't I say the same thing?
Or do you expect that BootNext remain after "run -e"?
-Takahiro Akashi
> Regards
>
> Heinrich
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Takahiro Akashi
> >
> >> Best regards
> >>
> >> Heinrich
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>> } 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
