From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Enable a capsule loader interface for user to update Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 15:58:08 +0200 Message-ID: <20150410135807.GH28074@pd.tnic> References: <1428694844-7782-1-git-send-email-hock.leong.kweh@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1428694844-7782-1-git-send-email-hock.leong.kweh-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: "Kweh, Hock Leong" Cc: Ming Lei , Matt Fleming , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Ong Boon Leong , LKML , linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Sam Protsenko , Peter Jones , Andy Lutomirski , Roy Franz List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 03:40:41AM +0800, Kweh, Hock Leong wrote: > From: "Kweh, Hock Leong" > > Hi Guys, > > This patchset is created on top of "efi: Capsule update support" patch: > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.efi/4837 > > It expose a sysfs loader interface for user to upload the capsule binary > and calling efi_capsule_update() API to pass the binary to EFI firmware. What I'm missing from those 0/n mails is why we need this? What is the problem you're trying to solve and why is Peter's userspace-only solution not enough. Now I have a fairly good idea why we might/could/would need the kernel interface but I don't believe the every reader has followed the whole discussion. So please start with the Why. Try to sell it to me as best as you can. Details will be discussed later anyway. Thanks. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply. --