On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 12:34:40PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Ilias, > > On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 at 08:48, Ilias Apalodimas > <ilias.apalodi...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Simon, > > > > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 08:09:04AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > Hi Ilias, > > > > > > On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 at 02:36, Ilias Apalodimas > > > <ilias.apalodi...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Simon, > > > > > > > > On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 at 02:27, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Add a bootmeth driver which handles EFI boot, using EFI_LOADER. > > > > > > > > > > In effect, this provides the same functionality as the 'bootefi' > > > > > command > > > > > and shares the same code. But the interface into it is via a bootmeth, > > > > > so it does not require any special scripts, etc. > > > > > > > > > > For now this requires the 'bootefi' command be enabled. Future work > > > > > may > > > > > tidy this up so that it can be used without CONFIG_CMDLINE being > > > > > enabled. > > > > > > > > I'll leave this up to Heinrich, but personally I wouldn't include this > > > > patch at all. EFI has it's bootmgr which can handle booting just fine. > > > > I don't see why we should duplicate the functionality. The new boot > > > > method can just have an entry called 'EFI' and then let the existing > > > > EFI code to decide. > > > > > > This is needed so that EFI boot is actually invoked. If bootmgr starts > > > being used then it can still be invoked from standard boot. The point > > > is that there is a standard way of booting that supports EFI and other > > > things. > > > > This patch tries to reason about the default naming EFI imposes on it's > > boot files. distro_efi_read_bootflow() will try to find files following the > > EFI naming convention (e.g bootaarch64.efi, bootarm.efi etc). If those are > > found it will try to boot them right? That's not the right thing to do > > though. > > On the EFI spec these files are tried if no Boot#### variables are found. > > So we can get rid of this entirely, add a dummy entry on the bootflow that > > says 'boot the efi manager' (which is what the next patch does). > > > > The efibootmgr then will check Boot#### variables and if none are found, > > it's going to fallback into loading bootaarch64.efi, bootarm.efi etc > > essentially offering identical functionality. > > Yes that's fine, and when EFI's boot manager is in use I have a driver > for that too, as you can see in the other patch. We may need to adjust > the order, by the sound of it, if it needs to run before EFI things. > But that is easy enough. >
That's the point though. I don't want to have 2 different ways of booting EFI as I don't see any benefit. Do you? Regards /Ilias > But we do need to provide the existing functionality for now, as I > understand it. > > > > This series is about replacing the scripts we currently have with a > > > proper C implementation that uses driver model. > > > > > Regards, > Simon
