On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 11:10:12AM -0500, Tom Rini wrote: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 09:37:23AM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > > Heinrich, > > > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 08:18:58AM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > > > On 11/13/20 5:14 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > > > > Summary > > > > ======= > > > > 'UpdateCapsule' is one of runtime services defined in UEFI specification > > > > and its aim is to allow a caller (OS) to pass information to the > > > > firmware, > > > > i.e. U-Boot. This is mostly used to update firmware binary on devices by > > > > instructions from OS. > > > > > > > > While 'UpdateCapsule' is a runtime services function, it is, at least > > > > initially, supported only before exiting boot services alike other > > > > runtime > > > > functions, [Get/]SetVariable. This is because modifying storage which > > > > may > > > > be shared with OS must be carefully designed and there is no general > > > > assumption that we can do it. > > > > > > > > Therefore, we practically support only "capsule on disk"; any capsule > > > > can > > > > be handed over to UEFI subsystem as a file on a specific file system. > > > > > > > > In this patch series, all the related definitions and structures are > > > > given > > > > as UEFI specification describes, and basic framework for capsule support > > > > is provided. Currently supported is > > > > * firmware update (Firmware Management Protocol or simply FMP) > > > > > > > > Most of functionality of firmware update is provided by FMP driver and > > > > it can be, by nature, system/platform-specific. So you can and should > > > > implement your own FMP driver(s) based on your system requirements. > > > > Under the current implementation, we provide two basic but generic > > > > drivers with two formats: > > > > * FIT image format (as used in TFTP update and dfu) > > > > * raw image format > > > > > > > > It's totally up to users which one, or both, should be used on users' > > > > system depending on user requirements. > > > > > > > > Quick usage > > > > =========== > > > > 1. You can create a capsule file with the following host command: > > > > > > > > $ mkeficapsule [--fit <fit image> | --raw <raw image>] <output file> > > > > > > > > 2. Put the file under: > > > > > > > > /EFI/UpdateCapsule of UEFI system partition > > > > > > > > 3. Specify firmware storage to be updated in "dfu_alt_info" variable > > > > (Please follow README.dfu for details.) > > > > > > > > ==> env set dfu_alt_info '...' > > > > > > > > 4. After setting up UEFI's OsIndications variable, reboot U-Boot: > > > > > > > > OsIndications <= EFI_OS_INDICATIONS_FILE_CAPSULE_DELIVERY_SUPPORTED > > > > > > > > Patch structure > > > > =============== > > > > Patch#1-#4,#12: preparatory patches > > > > Patch#5-#11,#13: main part of implementation > > > > Patch#14-#15: utilities > > > > Patch#16-#17: pytests > > > > Patch#18: for sandbox test > > > > > > > > [1] https://git.linaro.org/people/takahiro.akashi/u-boot.git efi/capsule > > > > > > > > Prerequisite patches > > > > ==================== > > > > None > > > > > > > > Test > > > > ==== > > > > * passed all the pytests which are included in this patch series > > > > on sandbox build locally. > > > > * skipped (or 'S', but it's not a failure, 'F') in Travis CI because > > > > "virt-make-fs" cannot be executed. > > > > > > Dear Takahiro, > > > > > > please, rebase your series on origin/master. A prior version of the > > > first patches is already applied. > > > > You can simply pick up and apply non-merged patches without problems > > except a function prototype change of efi_create_indexed_name() you made, > > which is not trivial to me. > > > > But anyway, I will post a clean patch set soon. > > > > > Testing on Gitlab CI, Travis CI, Amazon CI must be addressed for merging > > > the remaining patches. > > > > Where can we find the results? > > I don't think there is no official information on those CI's. > > If you submit a pull request against https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot > Azure will run automatically and show the results. We don't have
We can get a free account for Azure, but yet it requires us to give our credit card information to Azure. I don't want to accept it. So I believe requiring Azure test results is just inappropriate. -Takahiro Akashi > anything similar setup for GitLab, but since it uses the same Docker > images as Azure, so long as the syntax is right (and there are linters > if you're unsure of a change), it would be expected to work too. > > -- > Tom
