[U-Boot] [PATCH 02/11] efi_loader: Initial HII protocols

[AKASHI, Takahiro]

On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 at 16:37, AKASHI, Takahiro
<takahiro.akashi at linaro.org> wrote:
>
> Alex,
>
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 12:11:08PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 22.09.18 12:34, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> > > On 10/10/2017 02:22 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> > >> From: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm at linaro.org>
> > >>
> > >> Enough implementation of the following protocols to run Shell.efi and
> > >> SCT.efi:
> > >>
> > >>   EfiHiiConfigRoutingProtocolGuid
> > >>   EfiHiiDatabaseProtocol
> > >>   EfiHiiStringProtocol
> > >
> > > The i386 Shell.efi also tries to open these before failing:
> > >
> > > EfiHiiFontProtocol
> > > EfiHiiImageProtocol
> >
> > That sounds like a bug. The UEFI spec only mandates the following in
> > section 2.6.2:
> >
> > 2. If a platform includes a configuration infrastructure, then the
> > EFI_HII_DATABASE_PROTOCOL, EFI_HII_STRING_PROTOCOL,
> > EFI_HII_CONFIG_ROUTING_PROTOCOL, and EFI_HII_CONFIG_ACCESS_PROTOCOL are
> > required.
>
> Do you think efi implementation on u-boot also wants those protocols?
> (Apparently, config access protocol can be optional for shell unless
> we want driver configuration?)

One more question:
Does u-boot support any kind of "UEFI driver"?
If yes, is there any good example?
If no, do you expect that it should be supported?

Thanks,
-Takahiro Akashi

> Among others, UEFI spec defines lots of "packages" for HII database:
>    string, guid, font, image, device path, keyboard layout and etc.
>
> Do you expect all of them be supported from the beginning?
> If not, what criteria do you think is reasonable so that you feel
> comfortable in accepting an initial commit of HII database support?
>
> Thanks,
> -Takahiro Akashi
>
> > If you support bitmapped fonts, you must support
> > EFI_HII_FONT_PROTOCOL.
>
> > Well, in my book the whole fact that the UEFI shell requires HII sounds
> > like a bad design decision, but it should at least not require the font
> > protocol :).
> >
> > Also, I have built my own x86_64 shell.efi from latest edk2 git manually
> > and that works fine (even in sandbox). Maybe that is only the minimal
> > shell though? Their build system is still a bit of a mystery to me :).
> >
> >
> > Alex