On 4/1/20 2:31 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 10:20:17AM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: >>> Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 16:44:34 +0900 >>> From: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.aka...@linaro.org> >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 08:44:02AM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: >>>> On March 31, 2020, 5:28 a.m. UTC Takahiro Akashi wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 06:27:53AM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: >>>>>> The UEFI spec requires support for the FAT file system. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.g...@gmx.de> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> lib/efi_loader/Kconfig | 2 ++ >>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig b/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig >>>>>> index 9890144d41..e10ca05549 100644 >>>>>> --- a/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig >>>>>> +++ b/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig >>>>>> @@ -15,6 +15,8 @@ config EFI_LOADER >>>>>> select HAVE_BLOCK_DEVICE >>>>>> select REGEX >>>>>> imply CFB_CONSOLE_ANSI >>>>>> + imply FAT >>>>>> + imply FAT_WRITE >>>>> >>>>> Obviously, this *imply* doesn't enforce enabling FAT. >>>>> If it is absolutely necessary, another measure should be taken. >>>> >>>> If somebody wants to minimize the U-Boot size it might be necessary to >>>> do without FAT_WRITE or FAT support. >>> >>> If so, Get/SetVariable won't be supported even in boot time >>> with your patch applied. It is not practical for almost all users. >> >> I *strongly* disagree with that statement. Most users don't care >> about U-Boot providing a full EFI implementation. They just want to >> boot their OS. The basic EFI support in U-Boot is good enough for >> that and for OpenBSD and some Linux distros on arm/arm64 this is the >> only bootpath that works. If adding more code leads to board >> maintainers disabling EFI support this isn't helpful. > > Okay, so can you please describe the minimum set of functionality > for you? Without that, the discussion will not be fair. > > Anyhow, using "imply" to customize UEFI functionality would be > poor. Instead, we should introduce explicit configuration, say, > > config EFI_CUSTOMIZE_RUNTIME_SERVICES > > if EFI_CUSTOMIZE_RUNTIME_SERVICES > > config EFI_RUNTIME_GET_VARIABLE > select FAT
Why should exposing the GetVariable() service depend on FAT? At least for GetVariable() I see no real benefit of not exposing it always. > > config EFI_RUNTIME_SET_VARIABLE > depends on EFI_RUNTIME_GET_VARIABLE > select FAT_WRITE We cannot use writing to FAT at runtime. So this dependency seems incorrect. > > ... > > I proposed similar idea before, but it was not accepted. > It is time to do that. Unfortunately your patches for adjusting the storage of environments never made it into master. Best regards Heinrich > > Thanks, > -Takahiro Akashi >
