Hi Sughosh, On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 at 22:23, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.g...@linaro.org> wrote: > > hi Simon, > > On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 at 03:42, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Sughosh, > > > > On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 at 00:02, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.g...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > Add support for specifying the parameters needed for capsule > > > generation through a config file, instead of passing them through > > > command-line. Parameters for more than a single capsule file can be > > > specified, resulting in generation of multiple capsules through a > > > single invocation of the command. > > > > > > The config file can then be passed to the mkeficapsule tool in such > > > manner > > > > > > $ ./tools/mkeficapsule -f <path/to/the/config/file> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.g...@linaro.org> > > > --- > > > tools/Kconfig | 15 ++ > > > tools/Makefile | 1 + > > > tools/eficapsule.h | 114 ++++++++++++ > > > tools/mkeficapsule.c | 87 +++++---- > > > tools/mkeficapsule_parse.c | 352 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 5 files changed, 538 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-) > > > create mode 100644 tools/mkeficapsule_parse.c > > > > This patch keeps coming back :-) > > > > Can we not add multiple capsules in the binman description? Why do we > > need a new file format? How can binman decode images produced in this > > way? > > So as Tom mentions, this brings parity with respect to the other > capsule generation tool in EDKII that generates capsules. IIRC, this > is something which even Xilix was interested in, and Michal had kind > of gone through these patches earlier. Lastly, it would be good to > have support in U-Boot's mkeficapsule tool for generating a single > capsule file with multiple payloads, and having support for this > functionality helps in that goal. > > Also, you might have noticed that, since your objection to the last > series, I have removed putting this in binman. So now, this aspect of > the capsule generation would only be supported through the > command-line invocation of the tool.
That sounds like the opposite of what I was asking for... > > > > > Also, could we get sandbox to produce one EFI capsule as part of the > > normal build? I think that discussion trailed off. > > Yes, apologies for missing out on this. Slipped my mind. Would you > want, say, all the non-signed capsules to be generated as part of the > sandbox build? Just one would be good. Probably using a signed one makes more sense since it is more realistic? You don't need to change any of the existing tests...I just mean to add a single capsule generated as part of the sandbox binman invocation. The problem is that, at the moment, I cannot make much sense of the build/binman integration since nothing actually uses it. Once sandbox uses it, I will be able to understand it better and suggest ways to expand the binman support. Regards, Simon