On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 02:00:06PM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote: > On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 04:57:52PM -0400, Peter Jones wrote: > > This adds the EFI Spec version from the system table to sysfs as > > /sys/firmware/efi/spec_version . > > > > Userland tools need this information in order to work around > > specification deficiencies in 2.4 and earlier firmwares. Specifically, > > UEFI 2.4 and 2.5+ treat management of BootOrder very differently (See > > UEFI 2.4 section 3.1.1 vs UEFI 2.5 section 3.1), which means on older > > firmware we'll want to work around BDS's boot order management by adding > > fwupdate entries to BootOrder. We'd prefer not to do this on newer > > firmware, as it is both non-sensical in terms of what it expresses, and > > it results in more relatively failure prone flash writes. > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Jones <pjones@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-firmware-efi | 6 +++ > > drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 2 files changed, 61 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-firmware-efi b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-firmware-efi > > index e794eac..4eec7c2 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-firmware-efi > > +++ b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-firmware-efi > > @@ -28,3 +28,9 @@ Description: Displays the physical addresses of all EFI Configuration > > versions are always printed first, i.e. ACPI20 comes > > before ACPI. > > Users: dmidecode > > + > > +What: /sys/firmware/efi/spec_version > > +Date: August 2016 > > +Contact: linux-efi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > +Description: Displays the UEFI Specification revision the firmware claims to > > + be based upon. > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c > > index 5a2631a..3ef3a2a 100644 > > --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c > > +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c > > @@ -141,11 +141,65 @@ static ssize_t fw_platform_size_show(struct kobject *kobj, > > return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", efi_enabled(EFI_64BIT) ? 64 : 32); > > } > > > > +static ssize_t spec_version_show(struct kobject *kobj, > > + struct kobj_attribute *attr, > > + char *buf) > > The function is renamed efi_spec_version_format() in the next patch. > Why not call it that right away in this patch? Well, I'd rather leave the _show bit there so we can use the same macro as everything else for the real declaration. It's less code, and more readable. > I'd change the return type to void and make this function copy > "(unknown)" to buf on error. That way you don't have to repeat > that over and over again in the next patch. I've done... almost that. I'm not sure one way is really better or worse, to be honest. > > + if (!buf) > > + return -EINVAL; > > Move that check to the top of the function so that you avoid calculating > major and minor in vain if buf is NULL. Sure. Updated set to follow. -- Peter -- 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
