Hi Tom, On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 at 12:04, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 11:20:52AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > > > On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 at 10:33, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 09:01:03AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > Hi Heinrich, > > > > > > > > On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 at 22:07, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.g...@gmx.de> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 18. Oktober 2024 01:24:02 MESZ schrieb Simon Glass > > > > > <s...@chromium.org>: > > > > > >We want to keep track of images which are loaded, or those which > > > > > >could > > > > > >perhaps be loaded. This will make it easier to manage memory > > > > > >allocation, > > > > > >as well as permit removal of the EFI set_efi_bootdev() hack. > > > > > > > > I'll change this 'hack' to 'feature'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, keep in mind that files can be loaded manually, e.g. via the > > > > > dhcp, the wget, and the loady commands. These are outside bootflows. > > > > > > > > Yes, this series is only going to help if bootstd is used. For ad-hoc > > > > use, EFI will need to rely on the above feature, at least until > > > > someone can think of another solution. > > > > > > Perhaps I need to try and be clearer here than I might have been in the > > > past. The consensus among off the shelf free software operating systems > > > is "just give me an EFI interface". This simplifies things on their end > > > if regardless of architecture it's the same interface. This means that > > > in U-Boot we need to treat EFI as one of the primary interfaces. Not a > > > novelty. Not a "some people might use". It is a frequent and commonly > > > used feature. > > > > Yes, EFI is everywhere and growing. All the more reason to tidy up > > this piece. I would like to see bootmgr use this new API, for example. > > > > But how does this comment affect this patch? > > Because at the very high level, I wonder if I made a mistake a few years > back. As I understand it, the nominal case is "bootefi bootmgr". I was > saying at the time that perhaps bootstd can just fire that off, and move > on. Now it seems like we're going along the path of re-inventing that, > and not integrating well with it either.
In what way are we re-inventing that? bootstd supports lots of different ways of booting, not just EFI. Also I hope that one day EFI will be implemented more as part of U-Boot than as a bolt-on, so will make use of bootflows, etc. > > So, to try and bring things back together. If U-Boot decides to load > $FOO from device $BAR, at that common point is where we need to: > - Is there an lmb for the location this is supposed to go to (for the if > we know it, entire size)? > - Note down everything else we know, now. Yes. > > This means that we can note down enough stuff so that EFI can construct > the path it needs. And if we're being told a filesystem, that filename > is good enough for the IH_TYPE thing you're wanting, or at least a good > chunk of it I hope. You want me to ignore the type that I know (kernel, ramdisk, logo, etc.) and infer the type from a filename? Why? For EFI there is only an EFI application. It will always just be a PE file. We don't really know what it is, as someone pointed out earlier. Maybe one day we will check to see if it is a UKI and pull things out of it. But then, it would be component parts (kernel, ramdisk, etc.) so I would want to add them as images. > > It also means that since it's at the most common point, it doesn't > matter if we were in an EFI application, a boot script, a bootmeth or > someone at the cmdline doing "load mmc 0:1 /boot/Image $kernel_addr_r". For that case (at the cmdline), bootstd is not currently running. Are you suggesting that bootstd could pick up these things and record them? If so, then yes, definitely, I want to do that. This series is the starting point for that. If you are suggesting something else, then I think I have lost you at this point. Regards, Simon
