Re: [v4 11/24] efi: Rearrange the Kconfig for CMD_BOOTEFI_BOOTMGR

Heinrich Schuchardt
2023-10-19T15:24:43Z

On 19.10.23 17:19, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 05:16:28PM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
>> On 19.10.23 17:00, Tom Rini wrote:
>>> From: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>>>
>>> The command should not be used to enable library functionality. Add a
>>> new BOOTEFI_BOOTMGR Kconfig for that. Adjust the conditions so that the
>>> same code is built.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>>> Suggested-by: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>
>>> ---
>>> Cc: Heinrich Schuchardt <heinrich.schuchardt@canonical.com>
>>> Cc: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org>
>>> Changes in v4:
>>> - Integrate AKASHI Takahiro's feedback from v3
>>> - Reword the help text on CMD_BOOTEFI_BOOTMGR slightly
>>> ---
>>> cmd/Kconfig | 11 ++++++++++-
>>> lib/efi_loader/Kconfig | 6 +++---
>>> lib/efi_loader/Makefile | 2 +-
>>> 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/cmd/Kconfig b/cmd/Kconfig
>>> index 16e5cb8f0633..872cb49150cc 100644
>>> --- a/cmd/Kconfig
>>> +++ b/cmd/Kconfig
>>> @@ -379,6 +379,15 @@ config CMD_BOOTEFI
>>> help
>>> Boot an EFI image from memory.
>>> +config CMD_BOOTEFI_BOOTMGR
>>> + bool "UEFI Boot Manager command"
>>> + depends on BOOTEFI_BOOTMGR && CMD_BOOTEFI
>>> + default y
>>> + help
>>> + Select this option to enable the 'bootmgr' subcommand of 'bootefi'.
>>> + This subcommand will allow you to select the UEFI binary to be booted
>>> + via UEFI variables Boot####, BootOrder, and BootNext.
>>> +
>>> config CMD_BOOTEFI_HELLO_COMPILE
>>> bool "Compile a standard EFI hello world binary for testing"
>>> depends on CMD_BOOTEFI && !CPU_V7M
>>> @@ -2110,7 +2119,7 @@ config CMD_EFIDEBUG
>>> config CMD_EFICONFIG
>>> bool "eficonfig - provide menu-driven uefi variables maintenance interface"
>>> default y if !HAS_BOARD_SIZE_LIMIT
>>> - depends on CMD_BOOTEFI_BOOTMGR
>>> + depends on BOOTEFI_BOOTMGR
>>> select MENU
>>> help
>>> Enable the 'eficonfig' command which provides the menu-driven UEFI
>>> diff --git a/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig b/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig
>>> index d20aaab6dba4..13cad6342c36 100644
>>> --- a/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig
>>> +++ b/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig
>>> @@ -32,14 +32,14 @@ config EFI_LOADER
>>> if EFI_LOADER
>>> -config CMD_BOOTEFI_BOOTMGR
>>> +config BOOTEFI_BOOTMGR
>>> bool "UEFI Boot Manager"
>>> default y
>>> select BOOTMETH_GLOBAL if BOOTSTD
>>> help
>>> Select this option if you want to select the UEFI binary to be booted
>>> - via UEFI variables Boot####, BootOrder, and BootNext. This enables the
>>> - 'bootefi bootmgr' command.
>>> + via UEFI variables Boot####, BootOrder, and BootNext. You should also
>>> + normally enable CMD_BOOTEFI_BOOTMGR so that the command is available.
>>> choice
>>> prompt "Store for non-volatile UEFI variables"
>>> diff --git a/lib/efi_loader/Makefile b/lib/efi_loader/Makefile
>>> index 8d31fc61c601..0a2cb6e3c476 100644
>>> --- a/lib/efi_loader/Makefile
>>> +++ b/lib/efi_loader/Makefile
>>> @@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ targets += initrddump.o
>>> endif
>>> obj-$(CONFIG_CMD_BOOTEFI_HELLO) += helloworld_efi.o
>>> -obj-$(CONFIG_CMD_BOOTEFI_BOOTMGR) += efi_bootmgr.o
>>> +obj-$(CONFIG_BOOTEFI_BOOTMGR) += efi_bootmgr.o
>>> obj-y += efi_boottime.o
>>> obj-y += efi_helper.o
>>> obj-$(CONFIG_EFI_HAVE_CAPSULE_SUPPORT) += efi_capsule.o
>>
>> This patch looks wrong.
>>
>> Symbol CONFIG_CMD_BOOTEFI_BOOTMGR is used in a lot of places where it is not
>> related to the 'bootefi bootmgr' subcommand.
>>
>> I see no benefit in two separate symbols. If you want to rename the symbol,
>> please, replace *all* occurrences:
>>
>> %s/CONFIG_CMD_BOOTEFI_BOOTMGR/CONFIG_BOOTEFI_BOOTMGR/
>
> Yes, there's work on the EFI_LOADER side of things to support the use
> case of "boot to menu" (or, "boot to efi bootmgr") of which this is the
> starting point. The follow-up work that I'm hoping you or someone else
> with more EFI_LOADER experience will pick up is splitting cmd/bootefi.c
> such that we can call in to starting an EFI payload (or bootmgr) without
> the command line.
>

Even after factoring out the boot functionality I would not know why we
should have two separate symbols. I am fine with a rename which makes it
clear that this symbol is about a library functionality.

Best regards

Heinrich