On 12/4/21 07:56, Simon Glass wrote:
Show the revision of this table as it can be important.
Alo update the 'efi table' entry to show the actual address of the EFI
%s/Alo/Also/
table rather than our table that points to it. This saves a step and the
intermediate table has nothing else in it.
Should this information been shown by the 'efi' command instead of 'bdinfo'?
Best regards
Heinrich
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>
---
Changes in v5:
- Fix grammar in commit message
Changes in v3:
- Add new patch to show the system-table revision
arch/x86/cpu/efi/payload.c | 9 ++++++++-
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/cpu/efi/payload.c b/arch/x86/cpu/efi/payload.c
index d2aa889a2b9..b7778565b19 100644
--- a/arch/x86/cpu/efi/payload.c
+++ b/arch/x86/cpu/efi/payload.c
@@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
#include <common.h>
#include <cpu_func.h>
#include <efi.h>
+#include <efi_api.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include <init.h>
#include <log.h>
@@ -296,8 +297,14 @@ void setup_efi_info(struct efi_info *efi_info)
void efi_show_bdinfo(void)
{
struct efi_entry_systable *table = NULL;
+ struct efi_system_table *sys_table;
int size, ret;
ret = efi_info_get(EFIET_SYS_TABLE, (void **)&table, &size);
- bdinfo_print_num_l("efi_table", (ulong)table);
+ if (!ret) {
+ bdinfo_print_num_l("efi_table", table->sys_table);
+ sys_table = (struct efi_system_table *)(uintptr_t)
+ table->sys_table;
+ bdinfo_print_num_l(" revision", sys_table->fw_revision);
+ }
}