On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 02:27:57PM +0300, Ed Bartosh wrote: > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 01:44:29PM -0400, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 06:47:07PM +0300, Ed Bartosh wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:03:27PM -0400, Tom Rini wrote: > > > > In the case of non-wic images there is logic today to generate a > > > > startup.nsh file that will be executed by EFI to run the loader that the > > > > image contains. In the WIC case is currently depends on that file being > > > > generated elsewhere and placed in DEPLOY_DIR_IMAGE and only used if > > > > present there. > > > > > > What's wrong with this approach? > > > > No one ever provides a startup.nsh and everyone that wants one creates > > the same one line trivial example. The end result is that no WIC images > > are Just Bootable on UEFI systems unless you first go and spell that out > > as the desired booting device. This isn't an awesome workflow which is > > why the non-WIC cases make the required startup.nsh :) > > Would it be better if EFI providers create this file? > > I still believe that wic should't hack the filesystem content unless > it's really unavoidable. So far I know only one exception: updating > /etc/fstab. And even that is not always needed (see --no-update-fstab > patchset for further details.)
Well, it depends on your view of who is supposed to do what. Today, in wic BootimgEFIPlugin mirrors the efi_populate() function of systemd-boot/grub-efi.bbclass. That's where startup.nsh is made because it needs to know the name of the EFI application (also technically the path, but EFI\BOOT\ is spec mandatated I believe). So we can't easily make the deploy functions create startup.nsh without duplicating logic from the bbclasss. > > > I'd be happy to make wic to do only partitioning and assembling the > > > image and avoiding to modify image content as much as possible. > > > That would make wic design much more clear and let us to remove > > > a lot of duplication between wic and meta/classes code. > > > > > > Regarding boot partition content, I think preparing it from bootfs > > > directory the same way as it's done for root partition is the way to go. > > > You can find more details about it here: > > > https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10073 > > > > I don't conceptually see a problem with going that route. But today WIC > > images aren't nearly as useful as they could be, with a rather tiny > > change. > > If we agree that wic should avoid modifying content then the obvious way > to solve this is to provide required content (startup.nsh in this case) > either by EFI related recipes or core classes. Maybe I have to change my mind after thinking harder :) Where's the logic that creates the boot partition now? > > My patch is also a regression-fix, I believe, in that at some point in > > the past, when Christopher's patch went in, things were laid out such > > that startup.nsh was often/always generated by another class and placed > > where WIC would find it and copy it in. At some point that was > > broken/changed, and no one noticed / was interested enough to fix it. > > If this functionality is covered by wic test suite this wouldn't > happen. Once we agree on what the fix looks like, I'll see if I can figure out how to add in another test. :) -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
