Agree, that's what we will do. - DW - -----Original Message----- From: arm.ebbr-discuss-boun...@arm.com <arm.ebbr-discuss-boun...@arm.com> On Behalf Of Graeme Gregory Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 8:37 AM To: udit.ku...@nxp.com Cc: nd <n...@arm.com>; boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org; Mark Brown <broo...@kernel.org>; arm.ebbr-discuss <arm.ebbr-disc...@arm.com> Subject: Re: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] [RFC] uefi: Account for SetVariable() not working at runtime
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 at 16:30, Udit Kumar <udit.ku...@nxp.com> wrote: > > Hi Mark > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mark Brown [mailto:broo...@kernel.org] > > Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 8:20 PM > > To: Udit Kumar <udit.ku...@nxp.com> > > Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org>; Architecture Mailman > > List <boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org>; nd <n...@arm.com>; > > arm.ebbr-discuss <arm.ebbr-disc...@arm.com> > > Subject: Re: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] [RFC] uefi: Account for > > SetVariable() not working at runtime > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 02:19:49PM +0000, Udit Kumar wrote: > > > > > > > Do any existing implementations change variables from > > > > > non-volatile to volatile? > > > > > > The UEFI spec is explicit about which variables are volatile and which > > > > are not. > > > > Simply relaxing non-volatile to volatile in the general case > > > > doesn't seem like a useful approach to me. > > > > > I believe at boot-time, UEFI specs will be followed for volatile > > > and non-volatile > > variables. > > > Having this in statement EBBR, will help those platform, which > > > cannot expose > > non-volatile variables at runtime. > > > > If nothing currently does it the chances that anything will actually > > cope well seem minimal. Like Daniel said it seems more likely to > > break things - if the variables are defined as being non-volatile > > then the OS is unlikely to be checking at runtime if that's the case > > or not unless it's explicitly written to work with EBBR. If an > > error is generated because a non-volatile variable can't be set then > > that should at least fall into whatever error handling code is there to > > cover normal rutime failures which has some chance of doing something > > sensible. > > Right, > There will be some breaks or say diversion from UEFI specs. > If we need to follow UEFI specs 'Table 10. Global Variables' on such > platform where we cannot write to NV storage at runtime, then in > either case 1/ passing OS as no-efi-runtime or 2/ Returning errors/not > saving to NV storage is violation of UEFI spec. > > Which divergence is acceptable ? > Neither, fix the specs with proper updates to support your use-case. Or fix your platform to obey the specs you have chosen. Don't write a spec to bend another spec that way leads to chaos. Graeme _______________________________________________ Arm.ebbr-discuss mailing list arm.ebbr-disc...@arm.com IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. _______________________________________________ boot-architecture mailing list boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture
