On 12/23/21 15:57, Jose Marinho wrote:
Hi Heinrich,
Thank you for your reviews.
-----Original Message----- From: Heinrich Schuchardt xypron.glpk@gmx.de Sent: 17 December 2021 17:27 To: Jose Marinho Jose.Marinho@arm.com; u-boot@lists.denx.de Cc: ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org; sughosh.ganu@linaro.org; takahiro.akashi@linaro.org; agraf@csgraf.de; nd nd@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.marinho@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 theECPT 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");