Hi Heinrich, On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 09:44:39PM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > On 12/30/20 4:07 PM, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > > Hi! > > > > This is v2 of [1]. > > > > There's been a couple of changes regarding where we install the protocol. > > The initial patchset was completely disregarding BootNext, so that's taken > > into account now and we can use the new feature. > > This brought a few changes on the selftests as well, since we now use the > > loaded image handle to install the protocol, as a consequence the custom > > handle in the tests is now uninstalled during the test .teardown(), but > > the overall approach remains identical. > > Boot#### contains a device path. > > Why should Initrd#### contain something U-Boot specific and not a device > path?
Because there was no standard on it, since we used the path as a config option up to now I just kept it as is. > > Think of a Linux distribution. When updating the kernel it will have to > write Boot#### and Initrd####. It can determine the current boot device > via BootCurrent and Boot####. Next it can add the new file paths for > Boot#### and Initrd#### relative to the same device. This isn't a bad idea. Let me update the patch and send a v3. Cheers /Ilias
