Heinrich,

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 08:42:27AM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 07:53:46PM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> > On 8/22/19 11:03 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> > >Heinrich,
> > >
> > >I'm now wondering whether LoadedImage's LoadOptions, which comes
> > >from "bootargs" variable, should contain a command(application) name
> > >as a first argument or not.
> > >
> > >When I tried some efi application (efitools), I found that it expected
> > >so. For example, efitools' UpdateVars.efi takes
> > >     Usage: UpdateVars.efi: [-g guid] [-a] [-e] [-b] var file
> > >
> > >and I had to passed arguments by specifying "foo db DB.auth" for
> > >"bootargs" where foo makes no sense.
> > >
> > >What do you think about this issue?
> > 
> > Do you relate to
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jejb/efitools.git?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > This style of parsing LoadOptions is defined by the EFI shell. See
> > function ParseCommandLineToArgs() in
> > ShellPkg/Application/Shell/ShellParametersProtocol.c.
> 
> So do you mean that Shell.efi is responsible for adding a command name
> to LoadOptions (or bootargs) as a first parameter or that LoadOptions
> is solely for Shell environment?
> 
> If so, should we do the same thing at bootefi?

Any comment?

-Takahiro Akashi


> > If UpdateVars.efi would work differently it could not be launched via
> > the shell.
> 
> Well, I'm trying to run UpdateVars.efi in a standalone way
> by invoking it directly from bootefi/bootmgr and it obviously fails
> due to this issue.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Takashiro Akashi
> 
> 
> > Best regards
> > 
> > Heinrich
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot

Reply via email to