[PATCH 2/2] fwu: Gracefully handle missing FWU metadata device

[Ilias Apalodimas]

On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 at 14:55, Michal Simek <michal.simek at amd.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/2/26 12:07, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> > Hi Michal
> >
> > On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 at 12:10, Michal Simek <michal.simek at amd.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 7/2/26 10:03, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 at 10:49, Michal Simek <michal.simek at amd.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 7/2/26 09:41, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Michal,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 at 16:18, Michal Simek <michal.simek at amd.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On systems with FWU enabled but without the required DT changes the FWU
> >>>>>> metadata device is not found and fwu_boottime_checks() returns an error.
> >>>>>> Being an initcall, that non-zero return aborts the boot flow
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Return 0 instead so the boot continues. The preceding log_err() still
> >>>>>> tells the user that the FWU device could not be found.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Won't that affect the board later on? E.g When you do capsule updates,
> >>>>> updating the metadata will fail
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you mean on systems without mdata?
> >>>
> >>> Yes. if the config is enabled it will make the capsule update code
> >>> searching and updating metadata.
> >>
> >> fwu mdata backend is not enabled hence not used. fwu just returns 0 in dump.
> >> Updating metadata will never call any backend.
> >
> > The prints below are just from fwu and efidebug for the ESRT table.
> > Those will work.
> > But what happens if you try to run a capsule update?
> > Eg. efi_capsule_update_firmware() will call
> > fwu_plat_get_update_index() which will fail,. no ?
>
> it fails on fwu_update_checks_pass() before fwu_plat_get_update_index().
>
> versal2> efidebug capsule update -v 0x40000000
> Capsule guid: 6dcbd5ed-e82d-4c44-bda1-7194199ad92a
> Capsule flags: 0x18000
> Capsule header size: 0x1c
> Capsule image size: 0x41434
> FWU checks failed. Cannot start update
> Cannot handle a capsule at 0000000040000000

Ah yes, that ret 0; will never update boottime_check properly.

Thanks
/Ilias
>
> Thanks,
> Michal
>