On 03.12.19 09:08, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
On 12/3/19 7:37 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 03.12.19 08:27, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
As part of moving the parsing of command line arguments to do_bootefi() call efi_install_fdt() with the address of the device tree instead of a string.
Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt xypron.glpk@gmx.de
cmd/bootefi.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/cmd/bootefi.c b/cmd/bootefi.c index f613cce7e2..3cf190889e 100644 --- a/cmd/bootefi.c +++ b/cmd/bootefi.c @@ -196,40 +196,37 @@ static void *get_config_table(const efi_guid_t *guid) #endif /* !CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(GENERATE_ACPI_TABLE) */
/**
- efi_install_fdt() - install fdt passed by a command argument
- efi_install_fdt() - install device tree
*
- If fdt_opt is available, the device tree located at that memory
address will
- If fdt_addr is available, the device tree located at that memory
address will * will be installed as configuration table, otherwise the device tree located * at the address indicated by environment variable fdtcontroladdr will be used. *
- On architectures (x86) using ACPI tables device trees shall not be
installed
- as configuration table.
- On architectures using ACPI tables device trees shall not be
installed as
- configuration table.
*
- @fdt_opt: pointer to argument
- @fdt_addr: address of device tree
* Return: status code */ -static efi_status_t efi_install_fdt(const char *fdt_opt) +static efi_status_t efi_install_fdt(uintptr_t fdt_addr) { /* * The EBBR spec requires that we have either an FDT or an ACPI table * but not both. */ #if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(GENERATE_ACPI_TABLE) - if (fdt_opt) { + if (fdt_addr) {
Why check for fdt_addr != 0 here? Since you do the parsing outside of this function now, just make 0 a valid pointer and check for the validity outside of this function.
fdt_addr == 0 signals that U-Boot's internal device tree shall be used for the UEFI sub-system.
Your suggested change would drop the capability to use the internal device tree. Why would you want to do so?
Mostly because I didn't look at the bigger picture, sorry :). Looking at all the options, your patch is probably the best solution. Sorry for the fuss.
Reviewed-by: Alexander Graf agraf@csgraf.de
Alex