On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Peter Jones <pjones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:26:52PM +0000, Matt Fleming wrote: >> On Fri, 06 Mar, at 04:39:12PM, Peter Jones wrote: >> > >> > So again: do we really need or want to do this? >> >> One thing that we totally lose the ability to do is use the capsule >> interface for things *other* than firmware updates, e.g. >> >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/10/16/327 >> >> Also, requiring embedded or custom OS to include fwupdate into their >> existing boot solutions is a bit heavy handed when literally all they >> want to do is cat a binary blob to a sysfs file. >> >> I don't see why we can't have both solutions. > > Yeah - we clearly need a kernel interface for some embedded devices, and > it'd be better for every vendor to not implement it themselves. > >> Another thing is that ESRT isn't going to be supported by every >> platform. > > Yeah - though I think you're *mostly* talking about the same platforms > as above. > >> So, for the sysfs interface, let's not allow loading from /lib. Let's >> not require a userland tool. Let's just do, >> >> # echo /path/to/my/awesome/capsule.bin > /sys/../capsule > >> >> and be done with it. >> >> Hmmm? > > I assume you're implying a) the capsule header with the guid is embedded > in the .bin there already, and b) one contiguous write(2) with error > reporting coming through something like vars.c's efi_status_to_err()? > > If so, yes, I prefer this API. > Is using a char device really so bad? I have a "simple_char" that makes this really easy that's pending review. --Andy > -- > Peter -- Andy Lutomirski AMA Capital Management, LLC -- 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
