[U-Boot] efi_loader: LoadOptions (bootargs)
xypron.glpk at gmx.de
Wed Sep 11 17:39:07 UTC 2019
On 9/11/19 8:14 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 08:42:27AM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 07:53:46PM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
>>> On 8/22/19 11:03 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>>>> I'm now wondering whether LoadedImage's LoadOptions, which comes
>>> >from "bootargs" variable, should contain a command(application) name
>>>> as a first argument or not.
>>>> When I tried some efi application (efitools), I found that it expected
>>>> so. For example, efitools' UpdateVars.efi takes
>>>> Usage: UpdateVars.efi: [-g guid] [-a] [-e] [-b] var file
>>>> and I had to passed arguments by specifying "foo db DB.auth" for
>>>> "bootargs" where foo makes no sense.
>>>> What do you think about this issue?
>>> Do you relate to
>>> This style of parsing LoadOptions is defined by the EFI shell. See
>>> function ParseCommandLineToArgs() in
>> So do you mean that Shell.efi is responsible for adding a command name
>> to LoadOptions (or bootargs) as a first parameter or that LoadOptions
>> is solely for Shell environment?
LoadOptions are used to communicate with any EFI binary including the
Linux kernels. Inside the EFI shell Shell.efi takes care of passing the
executable name as a first parameter.
If a user chooses to call an EFI binary which expects its own name as
first parameter via bootefi, the user should simply add it to
LoadOptions via 'setenv bootargs'.
I would not change anything in bootefi. Otherwise you start passing
'vmlinux' or 'grubaa64.efi' as command line arguments to Linux.
>> If so, should we do the same thing at bootefi?
> Any comment?
> -Takahiro Akashi
>>> If UpdateVars.efi would work differently it could not be launched via
>>> the shell.
>> Well, I'm trying to run UpdateVars.efi in a standalone way
>> by invoking it directly from bootefi/bootmgr and it obviously fails
>> due to this issue.
>> -Takashiro Akashi
>>> Best regards
More information about the U-Boot