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

[Mark Kettenis]

> Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2024 19:26:01 +0200
> From: Heinrich Schuchardt <heinrich.schuchardt at canonical.com>

Hi Heinrich,

> 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.

To me, warning about persisting EFI variables only makes sense if
you're actually trying to persist an EFI variable.  But all we're
doing here is scanning for possible bootflows.

> I expect the sandbox to behave as any other board and provide warnings 
> when they are adequate.

The warning doesn't make sense to me on non-sandbox boards either.

I suspect this is the code that autogenerates EFI Boot options, so
code that sets Boot#### EFI variables.  But do we really care that we
can't make those persistent?  The code will just regenerate them upon
the next boot...