Heinrich, On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 06:51:35PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 11:43:07AM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > > On 9/12/19 11:17 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:57:20AM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > > >> On 9/12/19 6:51 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > > >>> In the current implementation, EFI_SIMPLEFILE_SYSTEM_PROTOCOL is always > > >>> installed to all the partitions even if some of them may house no file > > >>> system. > > >>> > > >>> With this patch, that protocol will be installed only if FAT file system > > >>> exists. > > >>> > > >>> Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.aka...@linaro.org> > > >>> --- > > >>> lib/efi_loader/efi_disk.c | 16 +++++++++++++++- > > >>> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > >>> > > >>> diff --git a/lib/efi_loader/efi_disk.c b/lib/efi_loader/efi_disk.c > > >>> index 7a6b06821a47..d72f455901f2 100644 > > >>> --- a/lib/efi_loader/efi_disk.c > > >>> +++ b/lib/efi_loader/efi_disk.c > > >>> @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ > > >>> #include <blk.h> > > >>> #include <dm.h> > > >>> #include <efi_loader.h> > > >>> +#include <fs.h> > > >>> #include <part.h> > > >>> #include <malloc.h> > > >>> > > >>> @@ -217,6 +218,19 @@ efi_fs_from_path(struct efi_device_path *full_path) > > >>> return handler->protocol_interface; > > >>> } > > >>> > > >>> +static int efi_fs_exists(struct blk_desc *desc, int part) > > >>> +{ > > >>> + if (fs_set_blk_dev_with_part(desc, part)) > > >>> + return 0; > > >>> + > > >>> + if (strcmp(fs_get_type_name(), "fat")) > > >> > > >> Before your patch we could use any supported file system (e.g. EXT2). I > > >> see no need for a restriction to FAT. You could compare the string to > > >> "unsupported": > > > > > > No. As far as you want to stick to compliance to UEFI specification, > > > "fat" is the only file system supported by UEFI. > > > > In the case of device path node VenHw() there is a direct rule in the > > spec indicating how it should be rendered. I have not seen anything in > > the UEFI spec saying that you should not support file systems besides > > FAT. So there is no compliance issue. I would be reluctant to remove an > > existing capability of U-Boot. > > See section 13.3. It says, > The file system supported by the Extensible Firmware Interface is > based on the FAT file system.
Any comments here? > > > > > >> if (!strcmp(fs_get_type_name(), "unsupported")) > > >> return 0; > > >> > > >> But wouldn't it be preferable to have a function to access fs_type (in > > >> fs/fs.c) directly instead of a string representation? > > > > > > Agree, but there is no direct function in fs/fs.c. > > > I'm reluctant to invent a new function just for this purpose. > > > > In that case we should compare to a string that is defined as constant > > in fs.h. Are you saying that we should add new macros in fs.h? All the file system names are initialized in fs/fs.c now. > -Takahiro Akashi > > > > > Best regards > > > > Heinrich > > > > > > > > -Takahiro Akashi > > > > > > > > >> Otherwise we should convert the string "unsupported" of fstypes[] into a > > >> constant in fs.h so that we can be sure we are using the same value. > > >> > > >> Best regards > > >> > > >> Heinrich > > >> > > >>> + return 0; > > >>> + > > >>> + fs_close(); > > >>> + > > >>> + return 1; > > >>> +} > > >>> + > > >>> /* > > >>> * Create a handle for a partition or disk > > >>> * > > >>> @@ -270,7 +284,7 @@ static efi_status_t efi_disk_add_dev( > > >>> diskobj->dp); > > >>> if (ret != EFI_SUCCESS) > > >>> return ret; > > >>> - if (part >= 1) { > > >>> + if (part >= 1 && efi_fs_exists(desc, part)) { > > >>> diskobj->volume = efi_simple_file_system(desc, part, > > >>> diskobj->dp); > > >>> ret = efi_add_protocol(&diskobj->header, > > >>> > > >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot