From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Akashi Takahiro Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 11:10:30 +0900 Subject: [PATCH 8/8] qemu: arm64: Add documentation for capsule update In-Reply-To: References: <20200430173630.15608-1-sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> <20200430173630.15608-9-sughosh.ganu@linaro.org> <270c907e-be81-f4a1-84b8-3931466ee87a@gmx.de> <20200430192730.GA4468@bill-the-cat> Message-ID: <20200507021030.GH20621@laputa> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 11:17:27AM +0530, Sughosh Ganu wrote: > On Fri, 1 May 2020 at 00:57, Tom Rini wrote: > > > On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 12:38:45AM +0530, Sughosh Ganu wrote: > > > On Fri, 1 May 2020 at 00:07, Heinrich Schuchardt > > wrote: > > > > > > > On 4/30/20 7:36 PM, Sughosh Ganu wrote: > > > > > Add documentation highlighting the steps for using the uefi capsule > > > > > update feature for updating the u-boot firmware image. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sughosh Ganu > > > > > > > > UEFI capsule updates should be architecture independent. I would expect > > > > that the submitted code should work for x86, ARM, and RISC-V. Why does > > > > this documentation live under the ARM emulation tree? > > > > > > > > > > While the implementation of the core capsule update functionality is > > indeed > > > architecture agnostic, this series is for implementing the routines of > > the > > > firmware management protocol, which is very much platform specific -- the > > > routines to perform the actual firmware update would be very much tied to > > > the platform for which the firmware is being updated. So Takahiro's patch > > > series, which adds the core capsule update changes is architecture > > > independent, while this series is adding the routines for the firmware > > > management protocol, which would be very much platform specific. > > > > Since we're talking QEMU here, how much of this can be easily dropped in > > to QEMU x86_64 and QEMU RISC-V? If not almost all of it, why? Can it > > be reworked as such? > > > > I don't think it would be too difficult to extend it on other > architectures, provided there is some mechanism to access and overwrite the > u-boot binary file from the qemu target. It is currently being done using > the semihosting interface for the arm architecture. I am not aware if there > is an interface like semihosting for accessing the u-boot binary on the > other architectures that you mentioned. Will check on this. Obviously, another choice would be my FIT-based FMP[1] as it uses update_tftp(), more specifically dfu_tftp_write(), internally. [1] https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2020-April/408767.html Thanks, -Takahiro Akashi > -sughosh