[U-Boot] [PATCH 14/16] efi_loader: Add distro boot script for removable media

[Simon Glass]

Hi,

On 3 February 2016 at 08:53, Alexander Graf <agraf at suse.de> wrote:
>
>
>> Am 03.02.2016 um 12:36 schrieb Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm at linaro.org>:
>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 03:45:12AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> UEFI defines a simple boot protocol for removable media. There we should look
>>> at the EFI (first GPT FAT) partition and search for /efi/boot/bootXXX.efi with
>>> XXX being different between different platforms (x86, x64, arm, aa64, ...).
>>>
>>> This patch implements a simple version of that protocol for the default distro
>>> boot script. With this we can automatically boot from valid UEFI enabled
>>> removable media.
>>>
>>> Because from all I could see U-Boot by default doesn't deliver device tree
>>> blobs with its firmware, we also need to load the dtb from somewhere. Traverse
>>> the same EFI partition for an fdt file that fits our current board so that
>>> an OS receives a valid device tree when booted automatically.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf <agraf at suse.de>
>>> Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
>>> ---
>>> include/config_distro_bootcmd.h | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>> 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/config_distro_bootcmd.h b/include/config_distro_bootcmd.h
>>> index 37c6b43..c19f1b0 100644
>>> --- a/include/config_distro_bootcmd.h
>>> +++ b/include/config_distro_bootcmd.h
>>> @@ -90,6 +90,48 @@
>>>    BOOT_TARGET_DEVICES_references_UBIFS_without_CONFIG_CMD_UBIFS
>>> #endif
>>>
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_EFI_LOADER
>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_ARM64)
>>> +#define BOOTEFI_NAME "bootaa64.efi"
>>> +#elif defined(CONFIG_ARM)
>>> +#define BOOTEFI_NAME "bootarm.efi"
>>> +#endif
>>> +#endif
>>
>> Actually, since Simon is testing this series also on Minnowboard
>> (at least MAX), maybe add bootx64.efi and/or bootia32.efi as well?
>
> We need more to support a new architecture - relocations for pe and u-boot for example. So adding the bootia32.efi bits in an x86 enable patch set makes the most sense imho.

Yes, let's worry about that later.

>
>
>>
>> I presume U-Boot for ia64 is not a thing? ;)
>
> s/U-Boot for // :). Don't ride dead horses.
>
>
> Alex
>

Regards,
Simon