[PATCH v2 2/2] sandbox: add bootmethod EFI boot-manager

[Tom Rini]

On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 10:49:16PM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> On 10/18/24 22:36, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 02:17:36PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > Hi Heinrich,
> > > 
> > > On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 at 11:26, Heinrich Schuchardt
> > > <heinrich.schuchardt at canonical.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > On 10/18/24 19:21, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > Hi Heinrich,
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 at 19:18, Heinrich Schuchardt
> > > > > <heinrich.schuchardt at canonical.com> wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The EFI boot-manager is the default method to boot EFI binaries.
> > > > > > We should be able to use it on the Sandbox.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > * Enable EFI boot-manager bootmethod on the sandbox.
> > > > > > * Adjust unit tests to reflect the additional boot method.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt <heinrich.schuchardt at canonical.com>
> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Mattijs Korpershoek <mkorpershoek at baylibre.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > v2:
> > > > > >           no changes
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >    arch/sandbox/dts/test.dts |  4 ++++
> > > > > >    test/boot/bootmeth.c      | 28 +++++++++++++++++-----------
> > > > > >    2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > This is better, but I still see this.
> > > > > 
> > > > > => bootflow scan
> > > > >        efi_var_to_file() Cannot persist EFI variables without system partition
> > > > > 
> > > > > Please find a way to get rid of it. I can give some suggestions if you like.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Would you, please, mind providing a rationale why you want this correct
> > > > message not to be written.
> > > > 
> > > > I expect the sandbox to behave as any other board and provide warnings
> > > > when they are adequate.
> > > 
> > > Well, what I am supposed to do to fix this warning? I just don't want
> > > unactionable messages coming up in bootstd.
> 
> The user runs a system that tries to boot via EFI. He does not have an block
> device with an ESP. For sure that is an actionable warning:
> 
> The user should insert properly formatted media.
> 
> And your test should put an ESP on the image.
> 
> > > 
> > > If it happens all the time and cannot be fixed, you could add an
> > > option to the driver to ignore it, which can be controlled from the
> > > devicetree node.
> 
> As said it can be easily fixed. Create an ESP on one of the block devices.
> 
> Do you really expect a user to change the device-tree to suppress a warning?
> 
> Wouldn't it be more plausible to remove the EFI boot method from the
> bootflow instead if that device is never to be booted via EFI?

Assuming that Simon is trying to test an image that won't be used with
EFI, but we check EFI first, is there a call we can do to check for
validity and if fails, move on?

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 659 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20241018/d317d6d7/attachment.sig>