On Apr 15, 2015 6:20 AM, "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 11:52:48AM -0400, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman > > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 05:44:56PM +0800, Kweh, Hock Leong wrote: > > >> From: "Kweh, Hock Leong" <hock.leong.kweh@xxxxxxxxx> > > >> > > >> Introducing a kernel module to expose capsule loader interface > > >> for user to upload capsule binaries. This module leverage the > > >> request_firmware_direct_full_path() to obtain the binary at a > > >> specific path input by user. > > >> > > >> Example method to load the capsule binary: > > >> echo -n "/path/to/capsule/binary" > /sys/devices/platform/efi_capsule_loader/capsule_loader > > > > > > Ick, why not just have the firmware file location present, and copy it > > > to the sysfs file directly from userspace, instead of this two-step > > > process? > > > > Because it's not at all obvious how error handling should work in that case. > > I don't understand how the error handling is any different. The kernel > ends up copying the data in through the firmware interface both ways, we > just aren't creating yet-another-firmware-path in the system. If I run uefi-update-capsule foo.bin, I want it to complain if the UEFI call fails. In contrast, if I boot and my ath10k firmware is bad, there's no explicit user interaction that should fail; instead I have no network device and I get to read the logs and figure out why. IOW bad volatile device firmware is just like a bad device driver, whereas bad UEFI capsules are problems that should be reported to whatever tried to send them to UEFI. --Andy > > 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
