On 1/2/22 00:56, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
On 12/31/21 15:36, Jose Marinho wrote:
Hi Heinrich,
-----Original Message-----
From: Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.g...@gmx.de>
Sent: 23 December 2021 18:32
To: Jose Marinho <jose.mari...@arm.com>; u-boot@lists.denx.de
Cc: ilias.apalodi...@linaro.org; sughosh.g...@linaro.org;
takahiro.aka...@linaro.org; ag...@csgraf.de; nd <n...@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] efi: ECPT add EBBRv2.0 conformance profile
On 12/23/21 15:57, Jose Marinho wrote:
Hi Heinrich,
Thank you for your reviews.
-----Original Message-----
From: Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.g...@gmx.de>
Sent: 17 December 2021 17:27
To: Jose Marinho <jose.mari...@arm.com>; u-boot@lists.denx.de
Cc: ilias.apalodi...@linaro.org; sughosh.g...@linaro.org;
takahiro.aka...@linaro.org; ag...@csgraf.de; nd <n...@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] efi: ECPT add EBBRv2.0 conformance profile
On 12/17/21 13:55, Jose Marinho wrote:
Display the EBBRv2.0 conformance in the ECPT table.
The EBBRv2.0 conformance profile is set in the ECPT if
CONFIG_EFI_EBBR_2_0_CONFORMANCE=y.
The config defaults to 'n'.
Signed-off-by: Jose Marinho <jose.mari...@arm.com>
---
include/efi_api.h | 4 ++++
lib/efi_loader/Kconfig | 6 ++++++
lib/efi_loader/efi_conformance.c | 9 +++++++++
3 files changed, 19 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/efi_api.h b/include/efi_api.h index
6fd4f04de3..49919caa35 100644
--- a/include/efi_api.h
+++ b/include/efi_api.h
@@ -230,6 +230,10 @@ enum efi_reset_type {
EFI_GUID(0x36122546, 0xf7ef, 0x4c8f, 0xbd, 0x9b, \
0xeb, 0x85, 0x25, 0xb5, 0x0c, 0x0b)
+#define EFI_CONFORMANCE_PROFILE_EBBR_2_0_GUID \
+ EFI_GUID(0xcce33c35, 0x74ac, 0x4087, 0xbc, 0xe7, \
+ 0x8b, 0x29, 0xb0, 0x2e, 0xeb, 0x27)
+
struct efi_conformance_profiles_table {
u16 version;
u16 number_of_profiles;
diff --git a/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig b/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig index
b2398976f4..ab7476f68b 100644
--- a/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig
+++ b/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig
@@ -373,4 +373,10 @@ config EFI_ECPT
help
Enabling this option created the ECPT UEFI table.
+config EFI_EBBR_2_0_CONFORMANCE
+ bool "Add the EBBRv2.0 conformance entry to the ECPT table"
+ depends on EFI_ECPT
With this dependency the symbol EFI_EBBR_2_0_CONFORMANCE is
superfluous.
Can we add EFI_EBBR_2_0_CONFORMANCE unconditionally or are there
relevant configuration flags in U-Boot that must be enabled to claim
EBBR 2.0 compliance? E.g.
* CONFIG_CMD_BOOTEFI_BOOTMGR
* CONFIG_EFI_GET_TIME
* CONFIG_EFI_CAPSULE_FIRMWARE_MANAGEMENT
I've removed the "depends on" in PATCH v2.
Ideally the EFI_EBBR_2_0_CONFORMANCE should depend on all the
CONFIGS required by EBBR 2.0.
I'm not sure whether this is feasible, i.e. whether there is a set of
CONFIGS_* which when enabled make the implementation EBBRv2.0
compliant.
Also, as the u-boot code evolves, these dependencies would need to be
carefully maintained perhaps.
Perhaps the best choice is to let the FW provider to set
EBBR_2_0_CONFORMANCE in the platform config file once the FW has been
deemed EBBRv2.0 compliant.
The firmware provider is the U-Boot project. If we do not know under
which
circumstances we might add the EBBR 2.0 conformance GUID, I prefer
not to
implement the table at all.
The EBBR 2.0 conformance GUID can be an entry in the ECPT when the FW
is EBBR v2.0 compliant.
The FW compliance with EBBRv2.0 can be determined by running the EBBR
ACS (obtainable from https://github.com/ARM-software/bbr-acs).
Should we state this in the commit message, or perhaps as a comment in
Config definition? In any case, the GUID inclusion criteria in the
ECPT is not ambiguous.
If we were to determine the EBBR2.0 GUID inclusion as a function of
other u-boot configs, we'd potentially unnecessarily complicate the
ECPT implementation in u-boot and also generate a maintenance burden
as the codebase evolves.
As the implementation of the EFI_HII_DATABASE_PROTOCOL in U-Boot does
not pass the SCT U-Boot does not comply to EBBR 2.0.
I see no use case for the ECPT table.
UEFI 2.10 now has defined the EFI_CONFORMANCE_PROFILE_TABLE. But it does
not provide a GUID for EBBR. EBBR does not define one either. I have
created https://github.com/ARM-software/ebbr/issues/95. Once the EBBR
community agrees on a GUID we can add the table.
Best regards
Heinrich
Best regards
Heinrich
Best regards
Heinrich
+ default n
+ help
+ Enabling this option adds the EBBRv2.0 conformance entry to
the
ECPT UEFI table.
endif
diff --git a/lib/efi_loader/efi_conformance.c
b/lib/efi_loader/efi_conformance.c
index 86c26d6b79..b490ff3326 100644
--- a/lib/efi_loader/efi_conformance.c
+++ b/lib/efi_loader/efi_conformance.c
@@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
#include <malloc.h>
const efi_guid_t efi_ecpt_guid =
EFI_CONFORMANCE_PROFILES_TABLE_GUID;
+const efi_guid_t efi_ebbr_2_0_guid =
+EFI_CONFORMANCE_PROFILE_EBBR_2_0_GUID;
#define EFI_CONFORMANCE_PROFILES_TABLE_VERSION 1
@@ -29,6 +30,9 @@ efi_status_t efi_ecpt_register(void)
EFI_PRINT("ECPT table creation start\n");
+ if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_EFI_EBBR_2_0_CONFORMANCE))
+ num_entries++;
+
ecpt_size = num_entries * sizeof(efi_guid_t)
+ sizeof(struct efi_conformance_profiles_table);
ret = efi_allocate_pool(EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_DATA, ecpt_size,
@@ -
44,6
+48,11 @@ efi_status_t efi_ecpt_register(void)
ecpt->version = EFI_CONFORMANCE_PROFILES_TABLE_VERSION;
ecpt->number_of_profiles = num_entries;
+ if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_EFI_EBBR_2_0_CONFORMANCE)) {
+ num_entries--;
+ guidcpy(&ecpt->conformance_profiles[num_entries],
&efi_ecpt_guid);
+ }
+
if (num_entries)
EFI_PRINT("ECPT check conformance profiles, not all
entries
populated in table\n");
