[PATCH v3 4/4] fs: remove explicit efi configuration dependency

[Simon Glass]

Hi Heinrich,

On Mon, 18 Dec 2023 at 15:16, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk at gmx.de> wrote:
>
>
>
> Am 18. Dezember 2023 16:01:40 MEZ schrieb Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>:
> >Hi AKASHI,
> >
> >On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 at 19:39, AKASHI Takahiro
> ><takahiro.akashi at linaro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Now it is clear that the feature actually depends on efi interfaces,
> >> not "bootefi" command. efi_set_bootdev() will automatically be nullified
> >> if necessary efi component is disabled.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi at linaro.org>
> >> ---
> >>  fs/fs.c | 7 +++----
> >>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/fs/fs.c b/fs/fs.c
> >> index f33b85f92b61..82ee03b160e9 100644
> >> --- a/fs/fs.c
> >> +++ b/fs/fs.c
> >> @@ -791,10 +791,9 @@ int do_load(struct cmd_tbl *cmdtp, int flag, int argc, char *const argv[],
> >>                 return 1;
> >>         }
> >>
> >> -       if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CMD_BOOTEFI))
> >> -               efi_set_bootdev(argv[1], (argc > 2) ? argv[2] : "",
> >> -                               (argc > 4) ? argv[4] : "", map_sysmem(addr, 0),
> >> -                               len_read);
> >> +       efi_set_bootdev(argv[1], (argc > 2) ? argv[2] : "",
> >> +                       (argc > 4) ? argv[4] : "", map_sysmem(addr, 0),
> >> +                       len_read);
> >
> >As I understand it, this is setting the boot device so that (if it
> >happens to be an efi application) it will know which device it came
> >from. But this is a hack. For bootstd, the device is known as it loads
> >the kernel.
>
> Please, consider what happens when the user interactively executes the load and bootefi command from the console.
>
> >
> >Also it does not deal with memory allocation (nor can it).
> >
> >Where are we using the 'load' command to load a kernel? The distro
> >scripts are deprecated.
>
> Some users use boot.scr scripts
>
>
> >
> >At some point this code should be removed. Is it too early for that?
>
> Yes, as long as we allow users to invoke the bootefi command with an address pointer.

So how about we create the new path, with the info passed in as part
of the bootefi call? Then we can remove the call from bootstd, at
least.

Regards,
Simon