On Sat, Apr 08, 2023 at 06:55:20AM +1200, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 at 02:48, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 05:28:07PM +1200, Simon Glass wrote: > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > On Tue, 4 Apr 2023, 02:17 Tom Rini, <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 12:56:49PM +0300, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Apr 01, 2023 at 07:31:49PM +1300, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 1 Apr 2023 at 07:02, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 10:25:56AM +1300, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The current EFI implementation has a strange quirk where it > > > > > > > > watches > > > > > > > > loaded files and uses the last-loaded file to determine the > > > > > > > > device > > > > that > > > > > > > > is being booted from. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is confusing with bootstd, where multiple options may > > > > > > > > exist. > > > > Even > > > > > > > > loading a device tree will cause it to go wrong. There is no API > > > > for > > > > > > > > passing this information, since the only entry into booting an > > > > > > > > EFI > > > > image > > > > > > > > is the 'bootefi' command. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To work around this, call efi_set_bootdev() for EFI images, if > > > > possible, > > > > > > > > just before booting. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shouldn't this all be a simple wrapper around the EFI Standard > > > > > > > BootDeviceOrder or whatever that's called? > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you are referring to boot manager, which isn't used here. > > > > > > This > > > > > > is replicating the existing distroboot functionality in standard > > > > > > boot. > > > > > > > > > > The distroboot functionality *was* trying to behave like the EFI spec > > > > > expects the bootmanager to behave. Unfortunately I haven't had time > > > > > to > > > > > review the distroboot patches closely, but back when this started, my > > > > point > > > > > was that EFI doesn't need anything. Whenever the EFI flow is added > > > > bootstd > > > > > should 'just' call the bootmanager. > > > > > > > > Yes, this. We're trying make things cleaner overall, so the EFI portion > > > > of bootstd distro boot should just be "call EFI bootmanager" as that has > > > > a well defined standard way to specify what devices to try in what > > > > order. > > > > > > > > > > We already call bootmgr in standard boot, if it is enabled. > > > > > > But I am not sure how widely that is used... > > > > > > This patch is about corner cases in the distro scripts. If we are to turn > > > these down we do need to try to do the same thing. > > > > We probably need some distro people to chime in about what they're doing > > / expecting at this point in time? I would have sworn that the long term > > part of EFI "distro boot" would be using bootmgr since that's the > > standards based way to set boot order. And if you don't have a device > > tree in U-Boot, and want the distribution one, aren't you then using > > something like grub which has a "dtb" keyword to handle that on its own? > > That's not saying that "distro boot" doesn't need to load the device > > tree, for when it's then calling booti/bootz/bootm, but not for the EFI > > case these days? Or no? > > That's all fine, but the goal here is to match the functionality we > have today, i.e. the distroboot scripts. If people move to bootmgr for > EFI at some point, that's a separate thing from this patch. If I am > misunderstanding something, please let me know.
Well, I'm going to change my mind (about a few things at this point) and say yes, OK, we'll go with replicating the current behavior first and make improvements on certain parts of the flow be a follow-up. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature