On 17.12.18 02:16, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 09:36:38PM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
>> On 12/14/18 11:10 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>>> From: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindh...@linaro.org>
>>>
>>> This patch provides enough implementation of the following protocols to
>>> run EDKII's Shell.efi and UEFI SCT:
>>>
>>> * EfiHiiDatabaseProtocol
>>> * EfiHiiStringProtocol
>>>
>>> Not implemented are:
>>> * ExportPackageLists()
>>> * RegisterPackageNotify()/UnregisterPackageNotify()
>>> * SetKeyboardLayout() (i.e. *current* keyboard layout)
>>>
>>> HII database protocol can handle only:
>>> * GUID package
>>> * string package
>>> * keyboard layout package
>>> (The other packages, except Device path package, will be necessary
>>> for interactive and graphical UI.)
>>>
>>> We'll fill in the rest once SCT is running properly so we can validate
>>> the implementation against the conformance test suite.
>>>
>>> Cc: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindh...@linaro.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdcl...@gmail.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.aka...@linaro.org>
>>> ---
>>> include/efi_api.h | 242 ++++++++++
>>> include/efi_loader.h | 4 +
>>> lib/efi_loader/Makefile | 1 +
>>> lib/efi_loader/efi_boottime.c | 12 +
>>> lib/efi_loader/efi_hii.c | 886 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> 5 files changed, 1145 insertions(+)
>>> create mode 100644 lib/efi_loader/efi_hii.c
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/efi_api.h b/include/efi_api.h
>>> index aef77b6319de..c9dbd5a6037d 100644
>>> --- a/include/efi_api.h
>>> +++ b/include/efi_api.h
>>> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
>>> #define _EFI_API_H
>>>
>>> #include <efi.h>
>>> +#include <charset.h>
>>>
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_EFI_LOADER
>>> #include <asm/setjmp.h>
>>> @@ -697,6 +698,247 @@ struct efi_device_path_utilities_protocol {
>>> uint16_t node_length);
>>> };
>>>
>>> +typedef u16 efi_string_id_t;
>>> +
>>> +#define EFI_HII_DATABASE_PROTOCOL_GUID \
>>> + EFI_GUID(0xef9fc172, 0xa1b2, 0x4693, \
>>> + 0xb3, 0x27, 0x6d, 0x32, 0xfc, 0x41, 0x60, 0x42)
>>> +
>>> +typedef enum {
>>> + EFI_KEY_LCTRL, EFI_KEY_A0, EFI_KEY_LALT, EFI_KEY_SPACE_BAR,
>>> + EFI_KEY_A2, EFI_KEY_A3, EFI_KEY_A4, EFI_KEY_RCTRL, EFI_KEY_LEFT_ARROW,
>>> + EFI_KEY_DOWN_ARROW, EFI_KEY_RIGHT_ARROW, EFI_KEY_ZERO,
>>> + EFI_KEY_PERIOD, EFI_KEY_ENTER, EFI_KEY_LSHIFT, EFI_KEY_B0,
>>> + EFI_KEY_B1, EFI_KEY_B2, EFI_KEY_B3, EFI_KEY_B4, EFI_KEY_B5, EFI_KEY_B6,
>>> + EFI_KEY_B7, EFI_KEY_B8, EFI_KEY_B9, EFI_KEY_B10, EFI_KEY_RSHIFT,
>>> + EFI_KEY_UP_ARROW, EFI_KEY_ONE, EFI_KEY_TWO, EFI_KEY_THREE,
>>> + EFI_KEY_CAPS_LOCK, EFI_KEY_C1, EFI_KEY_C2, EFI_KEY_C3, EFI_KEY_C4,
>>> + EFI_KEY_C5, EFI_KEY_C6, EFI_KEY_C7, EFI_KEY_C8, EFI_KEY_C9,
>>> + EFI_KEY_C10, EFI_KEY_C11, EFI_KEY_C12, EFI_KEY_FOUR, EFI_KEY_FIVE,
>>> + EFI_KEY_SIX, EFI_KEY_PLUS, EFI_KEY_TAB, EFI_KEY_D1, EFI_KEY_D2,
>>> + EFI_KEY_D3, EFI_KEY_D4, EFI_KEY_D5, EFI_KEY_D6, EFI_KEY_D7, EFI_KEY_D8,
>>> + EFI_KEY_D9, EFI_KEY_D10, EFI_KEY_D11, EFI_KEY_D12, EFI_KEY_D13,
>>> + EFI_KEY_DEL, EFI_KEY_END, EFI_KEY_PG_DN, EFI_KEY_SEVEN, EFI_KEY_EIGHT,
>>> + EFI_KEY_NINE, EFI_KEY_E0, EFI_KEY_E1, EFI_KEY_E2, EFI_KEY_E3,
>>> + EFI_KEY_E4, EFI_KEY_E5, EFI_KEY_E6, EFI_KEY_E7, EFI_KEY_E8, EFI_KEY_E9,
>>> + EFI_KEY_E10, EFI_KEY_E11, EFI_KEY_E12, EFI_KEY_BACK_SPACE,
>>> + EFI_KEY_INS, EFI_KEY_HOME, EFI_KEY_PG_UP, EFI_KEY_NLCK, EFI_KEY_SLASH,
>>> + EFI_KEY_ASTERISK, EFI_KEY_MINUS, EFI_KEY_ESC, EFI_KEY_F1, EFI_KEY_F2,
>>> + EFI_KEY_F3, EFI_KEY_F4, EFI_KEY_F5, EFI_KEY_F6, EFI_KEY_F7, EFI_KEY_F8,
>>> + EFI_KEY_F9, EFI_KEY_F10, EFI_KEY_F11, EFI_KEY_F12, EFI_KEY_PRINT,
>>> + EFI_KEY_SLCK, EFI_KEY_PAUSE,
>>> +} efi_key;
>>> +
>>> +struct efi_key_descriptor {
>>> + efi_key key;
>>
>> Hello Takahiro,
>>
>> with the patch I can start the EFI shell. But I am still trying to check
>> the different definitions in this file.
>>
>> As mentioned in prior mail the size of enum is not defined in the C
>> spec. So better use u32.
>
> Sure, but I still wonder whether this should be u32 or u16 (or even u8)
> as UEFI spec doesn't clearly define this.
Enums may hold up to INT_MAX, so just make it u32.
>
>>> + u16 unicode;
>>> + u16 shifted_unicode;
>>> + u16 alt_gr_unicode;
>>> + u16 shifted_alt_gr_unicode;
>>> + u16 modifier;
>>> + u16 affected_attribute;
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +struct efi_hii_keyboard_layout {
>>> + u16 layout_length;
>>> + efi_guid_t guid;
>>
>> A patch to change the alignment of efi_guid_t to __alinged(8) has been
>> merged into efi-next.
>
> I have one concern here;
> This structure will also be used as a data format/layout in a file,
> a package list, given the fact that UEFI defines ExportPackageLists().
> So extra six bytes after layout_length, for example, may not be very
> useful in general.
> I'm not very much sure if UEFI spec intends so.
I'm not sure I fully follow. We ideally should be compatible with edk2,
no? So if the spec isn't clear, let's make sure we clarify the spec to
the behavior edk2 exposes today.
>
>>> + u32 layout_descriptor_string_offset;
>>> + u8 descriptor_count;
>>> + struct efi_key_descriptor descriptors[];
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +struct efi_hii_package_list_header {
>>> + efi_guid_t package_list_guid;
>>> + u32 package_length;
>>> +} __packed;
>>
>> You are defining several structures as __packed. It is unclear to me
>> where I can find this in the UEFI spec. Looking at EDK2 I could not find
>> the same __packed attributes.
>
> To be honest, I don't know. I just copied these lines from
> the original patch from Leif & Rob.
> My guess here is that such data structures are also used as data
> formats/layouts as part of a package list in a *file* and that no paddings
> are necessary. Same as I explained above.
>
> # Same comments to yours below.
>
> I hope that Leif will confirm (or deny) it.
Leif? :)
Alex
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
