From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FEE7C2B9F4 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 09:00:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from phobos.denx.de (phobos.denx.de [85.214.62.61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E008361988 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 08:59:59 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org E008361988 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linaro.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de Received: from h2850616.stratoserver.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by phobos.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2336782D86; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 10:59:57 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linaro.org Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="MHhScImW"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by phobos.denx.de (Postfix, from userid 109) id 0CF9282D8C; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 10:59:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-wm1-x332.google.com (mail-wm1-x332.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::332]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by phobos.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF16882D22 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 10:59:52 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linaro.org Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org Received: by mail-wm1-x332.google.com with SMTP id o35-20020a05600c5123b02901e6a7a3266cso8217080wms.1 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 01:59:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=ISs+Fa7snyTtrpI0HycC8HyDWnTJA0jni/3Jy0Fw9yU=; b=MHhScImWhm572B0ZVz0cjfUJduoSeN8F8+D5cEyT4hNAinKYjD7wBF1GBmp77PTqs0 C+ozCYetBxyoiFtbtGDvBd8eAsknwW9AmQPotB1ScQ43g6MwSXS+nPBqmPosZpT/637W h2p59TKOOw59Dt3yYrVmL1qYkOp/XFhe4CeM5cG+gKuZcCIA2EylKMZvIvsa6kpgyArJ aQBdSoYiLBHbbIT7AbuhifydJpVlwCxf0g/PAWPUOv6tQPYXytQ7mBl9xkTy+sd4wWbq DD2INW0ehSLDNAYDTeidll6xoI14zBpzm1Fa0Pb3MJR1GT4nn9N5g3edfHT36Seu0UMg bp0w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=ISs+Fa7snyTtrpI0HycC8HyDWnTJA0jni/3Jy0Fw9yU=; b=bn7CPwDTsEtsa9fCCz4FnrCvIxuOUO5+c1I7kZbbnT+zIGPsQLDz5/ufglHnIBJViS vfTiWH0xHsN20SI6KUWccCm2iLyogkoWXavv6ecQV3nhjaeGKyK3vajULtFZE9EZECXu msIaxQCrx6kDRR7LG5CnlG4I2Ypby0aj/kFfkFIDrDJJX9Tyt3tqj01dgVWIn2YeAPZ8 IaIfCHTlcy3pRTEHFmtv4GA/Fn+mGwVGEO4mvV8nHahprzNhpX2fGFw1Px8irfFLKEiL C11aDt+Dfaecf54DNuvBs33/V7JGtjJJDD6mKniaqjdW0BFk5j5urn50J7Jot9+3+dDK yLaw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533KVrGhvWp4uTkLeEnY20CoPwBPdKUJ35wVh69QLWkxv5j8x8yr vc6sY0UZHC0LmrEJdA9B4Its5A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw3Av7U9v7w1buhAthedaousVsB6EotiLtY/cDf1o4syXKuaefHVRjRsip4WvKTCcqSJge57A== X-Received: by 2002:a7b:cbcd:: with SMTP id n13mr3357615wmi.18.1624870792348; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 01:59:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from iliass-mbp (athedsl-356348.home.otenet.gr. [85.72.247.154]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z6sm13401874wrh.65.2021.06.28.01.59.50 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 28 Jun 2021 01:59:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 11:59:48 +0300 From: Ilias Apalodimas To: Mark Kettenis Cc: Simon Glass , u-boot@lists.denx.de, pali@kernel.org, xypron.glpk@gmx.de, trini@konsulko.com, agraf@csgraf.de, yamada.masahiro@socionext.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] efi: Various tidy-ups and drop the default Message-ID: References: <20210628014841.501036-1-sjg@chromium.org> <5613706c36261e2a@bloch.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5613706c36261e2a@bloch.sibelius.xs4all.nl> X-BeenThere: u-boot@lists.denx.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: U-Boot discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de Sender: "U-Boot" X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.103.2 at phobos.denx.de X-Virus-Status: Clean I generally agree with Mark here. On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 10:38:50AM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > From: Simon Glass > > Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 19:48:34 -0600 > > > > It has come to light that EFI_LOADER adds an extraordinary amount of > > code to U-Boot. For example, with nokia_rx51 the size delta is about > > 90KB. About 170 boards explicitly disable the option, but is is clear > > that many more could, thus saving image size and boot time. > > EFI_LOADER used to be a lot smaller. It is great to see that over the > years UEFI support has become more complete, but a lot of that new > code implements features that are not at all essential for just > booting an OS from storage. If that growth leads to the suggestion to > disable EFI_LOADER completely by default, we're putting the cart > before the horse. > > > The current situation is affecting U-Boot's image as a svelt bootloader. > > Really? I know UEFI has a bad reputation in the Open Source world, > and some of its Microsoft-isms are really annoying (yay UCS-2). But > it works, it provides a standardized approach across several platforms > (ARMv7, AMRv8, RISC-V) and the industry seems to like it. Personally > I'd wish the industry had standardized on Open Firmware instead, but > that ship sailed a long time ago... I think the basics of EFI (mostly those that EBBR requires) are sane and nice to boot multiple architectures as well. > > I find it hard to imagine that 90k is a serious amount of storage for > something that is going to include a multi-MB Linux kernel. This > isn't code that lives in SPL or TPL where severe size restrictions > apply. > > > EFI_LOADER is required by EBBR, a new boot standard which aims to > > bring in UEFI protocols to U-Boot. But EBRR is not required for > > booting. U-Boot already provides support for FIT, the 'bootm' command > > and a suitable hand-off to Linux. EBRR has made the decision to create > > a parallel infrastructure, e.g. does not use FIT, nor U-Boot's signing > > infrastructure. > > EFI_LOADER is required to boot FreeBSD and OpenBSD on several > platforms as well as generic Linux distros. For example > OpenBSD/armv7, OpenBSD/arm64 and OpenBSD/riscv64 all rely on > EFI_LOADER to boot and have done so for the last 4 years. The fact > that ARM has embraced UEFI as an embedded boot standard and branded it > EBBR really isn't all that relevant. > > FIT simply isn't fit for purpose (pun intended). It only really works > for booting Linux, and forces people to combine u-boot, kernel, > initial ramdisk and other firmware components into a single image. > That is really undesirable as: > > - This makes it sigificantly harder to update individual components of > such an image. Making it hard to update a kernel is obviously a > serious security risk. > > - This makes it impossible to build an OS install image that works om > multiple boards/SoCs. > > > EBBR should be truly optional, enabled only by boards that use it. Most > > don't use it but it is enabled anyway. The default boot path should be > > one that makes use of the existing U-Boot support. > > I don't particularly care about EBBR myself, but EFI_LOADER should be > the default for as many armv7/arm64/riscv U-Boot targets as possible > to give users an easy way to choose the OS they want to run on their > machines. That is the best way to guarantee that vendors ship their > firmware with it enabled. > > > To try to retify this situation, this series adds a new Kconfig option > > for EBBR so that the naming is more explicit. Then EFI_LOADER is updated > > to depend on it. > > Isn't using the the term EBBR for non-ARM platforms misleading? Not really, we are discussing with RISC-V atm and having platfomrs being EBBR compliant. In essence we don't desire EBBR to be an Arm only thing. > EFI_LOADER is used much more widely. Anyway, I disagree with this > direction. > Same here > If size really matters here, we should look at reducing the EFI_LOADER > feature set to reduce the amount of code i adds, and maybe introduce > an EBBR option that can be enabled by those boards that desire full > EBBR compliance? +1 [...]