On Fri, Apr 07, 2023 at 10:44:53PM +0300, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > On Fri, 7 Apr 2023 at 22:39, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > I still don't think this is needed. The missing part from the > efibootmgr which was left in the distroboot implementation was booting > a default named binary (r.g bootaa64.efi for arm64) if no boot options > were configured. > > This is implementing the missing parts [0], so I would prefer not to > replicate things. > > [0] > https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20230405000654.1121544-1-raymond....@linaro.org/
Didn't Mark explain that OpenBSD needs it? They too count as generic distribution. :) -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
