[PATCH 1/4] tools: mkeficapsule: Add support for parsing capsule params from config file

[Sughosh Ganu]

hi Simon,

On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 at 03:42, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Sughosh,
>
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 at 00:02, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu at linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > Add support for specifying the parameters needed for capsule
> > generation through a config file, instead of passing them through
> > command-line. Parameters for more than a single capsule file can be
> > specified, resulting in generation of multiple capsules through a
> > single invocation of the command.
> >
> > The config file can then be passed to the mkeficapsule tool in such
> > manner
> >
> >  $ ./tools/mkeficapsule -f <path/to/the/config/file>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu at linaro.org>
> > ---
> >  tools/Kconfig              |  15 ++
> >  tools/Makefile             |   1 +
> >  tools/eficapsule.h         | 114 ++++++++++++
> >  tools/mkeficapsule.c       |  87 +++++----
> >  tools/mkeficapsule_parse.c | 352 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  5 files changed, 538 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
> >  create mode 100644 tools/mkeficapsule_parse.c
>
> This patch keeps coming back :-)
>
> Can we not add multiple capsules in the binman description? Why do we
> need a new file format? How can binman decode images produced in this
> way?

So as Tom mentions, this brings parity with respect to the other
capsule generation tool in EDKII that generates capsules. IIRC, this
is something which even Xilix was interested in, and Michal had kind
of gone through these patches earlier. Lastly, it would be good to
have support in U-Boot's mkeficapsule tool for generating a single
capsule file with multiple payloads, and having support for this
functionality helps in that goal.

Also, you might have noticed that, since your objection to the last
series, I have removed putting this in binman. So now, this aspect of
the capsule generation would only be supported through the
command-line invocation of the tool.

>
> Also, could we get sandbox to produce one EFI capsule as part of the
> normal build? I think that discussion trailed off.

Yes, apologies for missing out on this. Slipped my mind. Would you
want, say, all the non-signed capsules to be generated as part of the
sandbox build?

-sughosh