On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 at 23:16, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.g...@gmx.de> wrote: > > Am April 27, 2020 8:58:57 PM UTC schrieb Heinrich Schuchardt > <xypron.g...@gmx.de>: > >Am April 27, 2020 8:52:43 PM UTC schrieb Ard Biesheuvel > ><a...@kernel.org>: > >>On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 at 22:47, Ard Biesheuvel <a...@kernel.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 at 22:47, Heinrich Schuchardt > >><xypron.g...@gmx.de> wrote: > >>> > > >>> > Am April 27, 2020 7:39:38 PM UTC schrieb Ard Biesheuvel > >><a...@kernel.org>: > >>> > >On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 at 21:36, Heinrich Schuchardt > >><xypron.g...@gmx.de> > >>> > >wrote: > >>> > >> > >>> > >> On 4/27/20 1:01 PM, Daniel Kiper wrote: > >>> > >> > On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 08:15:41AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel > >>wrote: > >>> > >> >> On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 21:40, Atish Patra > >><atish.pa...@wdc.com> > >>> > >wrote: > >>> > >> >>> > >>> > >> >>> This series adds grub loader support for RISC-V Linux. > >>Thanks to > >>> > >the awesome > >>> > >> >>> initial RISC-V support added by Alex, we just needed a > >>loader for > >>> > >RISC-V to > >>> > >> >>> load and execute Linux using UEFI protocol. > >>> > >> >>> > >>> > >> >>> Fortunately, ARM64 Linux loader is written in an > >>architecture > >>> > >agnostic manner > >>> > >> >>> so thatgeneric RISC-V can easily reuse the loader code. > >>Thus, the > >>> > >first patch > >>> > >> >>> just moves the ARM64 code to common code. I have compile > >>tested > >>> > >for > >>> > >> >>> ARM64/ARM32. Even though it doesn't introduce any > >functional > >>> > >change > >>> > >> >>> for ARM/ARM64, any real testing will be helpful. > >>> > >> >> > >>> > >> >> May I suggest that we not blindly adopt the ARM code here, > >>but > >>> > >> >> instead, use the new initrd loading protocol that removes > >the > >>need > >>> > >for > >>> > >> >> GRUB to modify or even know about the device tree at all? > >>> > >> > >>> > >> Does this protocol exist in EDK2 by now? > >>> > >> > >>> > > > >>> > >Yes. It exists as a shell command, and as a load option for OVMF. > >>> > > > >>> > >> In U-Boot there is a basic implementation which can provide a > >>single > >>> > >> initrd image with a hardcoded file name. The file_path argument > >>> > >passed > >>> > >> to U-Boot is ignored due to Ilias' security concerns when he > >>wrote > >>> > >the > >>> > >> patch. > >>> > >> > >>> > >> GRUB is only needed if we have multiple kernels to choose from > >>with > >>> > >> distinct initial ramdisks. > >>> > >> > >>> > >> Please, describe what you expect the initrd loading protocol to > >>do > >>> > >when > >>> > >> called from GRUB. How will the ramdisk fitting the kernel > >chosen > >>in > >>> > >GRUB > >>> > >> be identified? > >>> > >> > >>> > > > >>> > >The same what GRUB's 'initrd' command does. Whichever initrd you > >>> > >select with it is the one that gets returned by the protocol. > >>> > > >>> > Will GRUB provide the absolute device path in parameter file_path? > >>> > > >>> > >>> Which parameter 'file_path" is that? > >> > >>Ah, I guess you mean the LoadFile2 argument? That is always > >>end-of-device-path in this case, since the initrd device path only > >>consists of the vendor media GUID. > >> > >>The thing to keep in mind here is that the OS does not *choose* an > >>initrd, it simply loads the one that the bootloader has staged for it. > > > >How should U-Boot know which initrd fits the kernel chosen by the user > >in GRUB? That information exists in grub.cfg only. > > > >If GRUB cannot provide this information, what is GRUB's added value in > >the boot process? > > Hello Ard, > > Did I misunderstand you and you want to provide a LOAD_FILE2 implementation > in GRUB and not use the one in the firmware? >
Yes. If you use GRUB, it is provided by GRUB. Otherwise, it can be provided by U-Boot or EDK2. _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
