On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 08:31:10AM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > On 4/1/20 3:14 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 08:57:33AM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 03:08:06PM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > >>> On 2020-03-31 09:44, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > >>>> 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. > >>> > >>> Hello Akashi, > >>> > >>> without FAT_WRITE we will not have persistence for variables. > >>> SetVariable and GetVariable are still usable. > >> > >> How about CONFIG_FAT? > > > > (=> What if !CONFIG_FAT)
? > > > > > > More fundamentally, > > Why do you want to use a file as storage device for variables? > > why not raw partition (or just part of partition) on, say, > > NOR or eMMC? > > > > As you know, EDK2 saves variables directly on NOR (or block device? > > probably). > > Yes, we may add further stores later on. Why not now? How will you generalize it? > Ilias wants to use the RPMB > area of eMMC devices. I think that he plans to use RPMB as secure storage for Standalone MM. > As an EFI system partition exists on any UEFI > compatible device I think implementing this first is a valid approach. I don't deny your approach here, but I expect that more generic framework for back storage be implemented and FAT driver be on top of that. -Takahiro Akashi > > Best regards > > Heinrich > > > > > -Takahiro Akashi > > > >> -Takahiro Akashi > >> > >>> Best regards > >>> > >>> Heinrich > >>> > >>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In addition, why do you treat FAT specifically here? > >>>>>> I remember that you insisted that other file system should be > >>>>>> allowed on U-Boot when I posted some patch. > >>>>> > >>>>> An EFI system partition is always FAT formatted. So if we want to safe > >>>>> U-Boot variables to the EFI system partition we require FAT. > >>>> > >>>> As system partition is required to be in FAT, file system used on > >>>> other partitions must also be in FAT since, as I said before, > >>>> UEFI specification clearly defines its file system format based on FAT. > >>>> See section 13.3. > >>>> > >>>> So, > >>>> > >>>>>> I remember that you insisted that other file system should be > >>>>>> allowed on U-Boot when I posted some patch. > >>>> > >>>> You reverted your statement above here. > >>>> That is my point. > >>>> > >>>> -Takahiro Akashi > >>>> > >>>>> Best regards > >>>>> > >>>>> Heinrich > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -Takahiro Akashi > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> imply USB_KEYBOARD_FN_KEYS > >>>>>>> imply VIDEO_ANSI > >>>>>>> help > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> 2.25.1 > >>> >
