[...]
> config EFI_CAPSULE_FIRMWARE_MANAGEMENT
> diff --git a/lib/efi_loader/efi_capsule.c b/lib/efi_loader/efi_capsule.c
> index de0d49ebebda..9ef67d1b4405 100644
> --- a/lib/efi_loader/efi_capsule.c
> +++ b/lib/efi_loader/efi_capsule.c
> @@ -19,8 +19,9 @@
> #include <mapmem.h>
> #include <sort.h>
> #include <sysreset.h>
> #include <asm/global_data.h>
> +#include <uuid.h>
>
> #include <crypto/pkcs7.h>
> #include <crypto/pkcs7_parser.h>
> #include <linux/err.h>
> @@ -403,8 +404,40 @@ out:
> return status;
> }
> #endif /* CONFIG_EFI_CAPSULE_AUTHENTICATE */
>
> +#if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(EFI_CAPSULE_DYNAMIC_UUIDS)
> +int efi_capsule_update_info_gen_ids(efi_guid_t *namespace, const char *soc,
> const char *model, const char *compatible)
> +{
> + int i;
Perhaps irrelevant to this patch, but do we need to define the name
space in platform code?
Can't we just put it on a Kconfig and do the dynamic UUIID generation
in efi_capsule.c?
Thanks
/Ilias
> +
> + if (!soc || !model || !compatible) {
> + log_err("%s: soc, model, or compatible not defined\n",
> __func__);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + if (!update_info.num_images) {
> + log_err("%s: no fw_images, make sure update_info.num_images
> is set\n", __func__);
> + return -ENODATA;
> + }
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < update_info.num_images; i++) {
> + gen_uuid_v5((struct uuid*)namespace,
> + (struct uuid
> *)&update_info.images[i].image_type_id,
> + soc, strlen(soc),
> + model, strlen(model),
> + compatible, strlen(compatible),
> + update_info.images[i].fw_name,
> u16_strlen(update_info.images[i].fw_name),
> + NULL);
> +
> + log_debug("Image %ls generated UUID %pUs\n",
> update_info.images[i].fw_name,
> + &update_info.images[i].image_type_id);
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +#endif
> +
> static __maybe_unused bool fwu_empty_capsule(struct efi_capsule_header
> *capsule)
> {
> return !guidcmp(&capsule->capsule_guid,
> &fwu_guid_os_request_fw_revert) ||
>
> --
> 2.44.0
>
