[RFC 2/8] boot: BOOTMETH_DISTRO should select BOOTMETH_EFI_BOOTMGR

[Ilias Apalodimas]

On Fri, 2 May 2025 at 16:23, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 2 May 2025 at 03:28, Ilias Apalodimas
> <ilias.apalodimas at linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Heinrich
> >
> > On Wed Apr 23, 2025 at 3:53 PM EEST, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> > > On 23.04.25 14:28, Simon Glass wrote:
> > >> Hi Heinrich,
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 at 10:26, Heinrich Schuchardt
> > >> <heinrich.schuchardt at canonical.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Distros expect the EFI boot manager to run. It falls back to launching
> > >>> EFI\BOOT\BOOT<ARCH>.EFI from the ESP.
> > >>>
> > >>> BOOTMETH_EFILOADER is obsolete.
> > >>>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt <heinrich.schuchardt at canonical.com>
> > >>> ---
> > >>>   boot/Kconfig | 5 ++++-
> > >>>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >>>
> > >>> diff --git a/boot/Kconfig b/boot/Kconfig
> > >>> index fb37d912bc9..71ddb37f6bb 100644
> > >>> --- a/boot/Kconfig
> > >>> +++ b/boot/Kconfig
> > >>> @@ -597,6 +597,9 @@ config BOOTMETH_EFILOADER
> > >>>          imply CMD_TFTPBOOT if CMD_NET
> > >>>          default y
> > >>>          help
> > >>> +         This bootmeth is obsolete. BOOTMETH_EFI_BOOTMGR takes care of
> > >>> +         launching EFI\BOOT\BOOT<ARCH>.EFI if not boot option matches.
> > >>> +
> > >>
> > >> I don't agree with marking this as obsolete and your commit message
> > >> doesn't explain why it should be.
> > >
> > > This method was written in a way that per se violates the UEFI
> > > specification as it does not set up required UEFI variables.
> > >
> > > You must never run this before the boot manager as booting
> > > EFI/BOOT/BOOT<ARCH>.EFI if there is a boot option violates the UEFI
> > > specification-
> > >
> > > The boot manager covers the functionality of this bootmeth.
> > >
> > > We should delete this method.
> >
> > +1. Do you plan to propose a patch to remove it and only leave the bootmanager?
> > Or you prefer marking it as obsolete for a while?
>
> No, neither.
>
> The work-around that Heinrich and I discussed was to insert bootmgr
> later in the bootdev sequence, not to disable this bootmeth.

Can you explain why you want to keep this bootmethod? Both Heinrich
and I explained why the bootmanager is the appropriate one for EFI.
Do you have any use cases in mind that isn't covered by the manager
and you need this?

Thanks
/Ilias
>
> Regards,
> Simon