On 2017-02-28 13:12, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Fri, 17 Feb, at 10:24:41AM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> >> I just can re-express my frustration that this essential step hasn't >> been started years ago by whoever designed the extension. Then I bet >> there would have been constructive feedback on the interface BEFORE its >> ugliness spread to broader use. >> >> Or is there a technical need, in general or on Quark, to have the >> signature header right before the standard capsule *for the handover* to >> the firmware? I mean, I would naively put it into another capsule and >> prepend that to the core so that the existing UEFI API can palate it >> transparently and cleanly. > > I'm fairly sure this was my first thought when we discussed this > originally, some years ago now. > > The whole CSH concept is, frankly, stupid. It makes a mockery of > everything the capsule interface was designed to be. > > I have long been holding out in hope that someone would patch the > firmware to work around this CSH requirement, something along the > lines of the double wrapping Jan mentions above. It's not like the > Quark is the only platform that wants to verify capsules. > > But to my knowledge, that hasn't happened. > > Nevertheless my answer is still the same - someone needs to go and > update the Quark firmware source to work with the generic capsule > mechanism. > >From you POV, does this exclude upstream quirk support for already shipped devices? Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RDA ITP SES-DE Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux -- 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
