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.
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");
