Hi Tom, On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 at 15:27, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 03:13:01PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > > > On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 at 15:04, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 01:13:17PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > > > On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 at 09:56, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 09:50:37AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > Hi Sughosh, > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 at 04:55, Sughosh Ganu > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Use the LMB API's for allocating and freeing up memory. With > > > > > > > this, the > > > > > > > LMB module becomes the common backend for managing non U-Boot > > > > > > > image > > > > > > > memory that might be requested by other modules. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sughosh Ganu <[email protected]> > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > Changes since V2: > > > > > > > * Use map_to_sysmem() to get the user-visible address to be shared > > > > > > > with the lmb API's for sandbox. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lib/efi_loader/Kconfig | 1 + > > > > > > > lib/efi_loader/efi_memory.c | 77 > > > > > > > +++++++++++-------------------------- > > > > > > > 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > When efi_init_obj() is called, it should be able to add the lmb > > > > > > memory > > > > > > to its own tables. There is no need to worry about lmb after that, > > Saying "There is no need to worry about lmb after that" is not true. > Invoking the "env" command for example will have efi_init_obj() be > called, among the others that Heinrich listed. And to possibly refute > a next issue, that is intentional so that efivars, the standard > mechanism used by an OS to talk with the firmware can be available to > U-Boot, if I recall things correctly. > > My understanding of your assumption is that you believe that once the > EFI_LOADER subsystem has started work on a payload we're just a few call > chains away from the OS being started and runtime services aside U-Boot > being done. > > My understanding of how things are used today is that this is incorrect.
What I am getting at is that once we have called that function we know we are booting an EFI app or using an EFI feature in preparation for doing so. Let's start there. Is that correct? Regards, Simon
