On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 11:33:23AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On 11/02/2014 07:07 PM, Kweh Hock Leong wrote: > > From: "Kweh, Hock Leong" <hock.leong.kweh-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Hi Guys, > > > > This patchset is created on top of "efi: Capsule update support" patch: > > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.efi/4837 > > > > It leverages the request_firmware_nowait() to expose the user helper interface for user to upload the capsule binary and calling the > > efi_capsule_update() API to pass the binary to EFI firmware. > > I don't get it. Why is the firmware interface at all reasonable for > uploading capsules? Tradition dictates that BIOS updates go through the firmware interface, that way you don't have to write a new userspace tool, which is a good thing. > The firmware interface makes sense for nonvolatile firmware where > hotplugging something or otherwise loading a driver needs a blob. Or BIOS data. We've been doing it this way for a long time now. > But uploading an EFI capsule is an *action*, not something that should > happen transparently. If there's an EFI firmware update available and > the user wants to install it, then the userspace tool should install it, > and it shouldn't hang around in /lib/firmware. In fact, you shouldn't > even need /lib to be on writable media to use this. What does /lib have to do with this? > And you most certainly don't want the EFI capsule hanging around so that > it might be accidentally installed again if the hard disk is moved. > > ISTM there should be some file in sysfs to which you can write a > capsule, or perhaps a chardev and an ioctl. No, just use the firmware interface please. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
