From: "Jeff Brasen" <jbrasen@nvidia.com>
To: Ashish Singhal <ashishsingha@nvidia.com>,
Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>, Andrew Fish <afish@apple.com>
Cc: "devel@edk2.groups.io" <devel@edk2.groups.io>,
"Ni, Ray" <ray.ni@intel.com>,
"Wang, Jian J" <jian.j.wang@intel.com>,
"Wu, Hao A" <hao.a.wu@intel.com>,
"Gao, Zhichao" <zhichao.gao@intel.com>,
Mike Kinney <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] Support skipping automatic BM enumeration
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 01:34:23 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <BYAPR12MB346238204D93AE9FD588F0D6CB790@BYAPR12MB3462.namprd12.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR12MB3324AACB42EA7253C2DFBCEEBA790@DM6PR12MB3324.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2410 bytes --]
Wouldn't having a variable that we create and delete on every boot put unnecessary stress on the SPI-NOR that the variable store lives on?
What about the alternative approach where we allow the platform code to modify the attributes of the auto created variable to disable it with hidden/!active but still match for detection purposes so that it doesn't delete and recreate the modified variable each boot? That way all the logic on what to disable can still be in the platform code and all the existing logic in the boot manager can stay basically the same?
What changes every boot that forces the variable to need to get modified?
I would assume the NOR driver is smart enough to not update a variable that is not changing.
The custom BDS could could only create the variable for this device if it does not exist.
[JB] The current flow with no changes in the boot manager would be as follows
1. Scan for instance of the boot option in the variables
2. It will not be found, so create a new boot option store it to a variable and update BootOrder
3. Platform code runs creates the options for the boot option it wants and writes those to variable store
4. Delete/disable the boot option in the variable store
When you reboot it won't find the variable so 1/2/4 will re-occur
The code that does this (1/2) is EfiBootManagerRefreshAllBootOption in BmBoot.c
If you modify the variable to disable it with hidden/not active it would delete that and create a new one as well as the code wouldn't recognize that is the same boot option.
If however we modify EfiBootManagerFindLoadOption to not compare the attributes (at least allow for differences in active and hidden) then the when it refreshes every thing it would see the match and not delete/create a new variable in the store and thus we wouldn't have changes every boot.
Thanks,
Andrew Fish
Thanks,
Jeff
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution
is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3742 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-06 1:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-30 3:47 [PATCH] Support skipping automatic BM enumeration Ashish Singhal
2019-10-30 3:47 ` [PATCH] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Support skipping " Ashish Singhal
2019-10-31 10:14 ` [edk2-devel] [PATCH] Support skipping automatic " Laszlo Ersek
[not found] ` <DM6PR12MB33249A87560B32B0155D4FE0BA630@DM6PR12MB3324.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
2019-11-01 21:42 ` Laszlo Ersek
2019-11-01 22:05 ` Ashish Singhal
2019-11-01 22:57 ` Laszlo Ersek
2019-11-04 17:51 ` Ashish Singhal
2019-11-05 2:42 ` Ni, Ray
2019-11-05 3:24 ` Ashish Singhal
2019-11-05 5:00 ` Andrew Fish
2019-11-05 5:06 ` Ashish Singhal
2019-11-05 5:21 ` Andrew Fish
2019-11-05 5:42 ` Ashish Singhal
2019-11-05 6:15 ` Andrew Fish
2019-11-05 9:54 ` Laszlo Ersek
2019-11-05 16:52 ` Andrew Fish
2019-11-05 18:00 ` Ashish Singhal
2019-11-05 19:23 ` Laszlo Ersek
2019-11-05 23:19 ` Jeff Brasen
2019-11-06 0:20 ` Andrew Fish
2019-11-06 9:56 ` Laszlo Ersek
2019-11-06 16:15 ` Andrew Fish
2019-11-06 19:58 ` Laszlo Ersek
2019-11-06 1:07 ` Ashish Singhal
2019-11-06 1:34 ` Jeff Brasen [this message]
2019-11-06 2:47 ` Andrew Fish
2019-11-06 3:20 ` Ni, Ray
2019-11-06 16:19 ` Andrew Fish
2019-11-07 4:12 ` Jeff Brasen
2019-11-07 6:59 ` Ni, Ray
2019-11-07 7:02 ` Jeff Brasen
2019-11-07 7:21 ` Ni, Ray
2019-11-07 17:46 ` Jeff Brasen
2019-11-08 16:37 ` Laszlo Ersek
2019-11-11 22:57 ` Jeff Brasen
2019-11-11 23:58 ` Ni, Ray
2019-11-12 0:00 ` Jeff Brasen
2019-11-13 18:42 ` Jeff Brasen
2019-11-14 2:09 ` Ni, Ray
2019-11-14 17:04 ` Jeff Brasen
2019-12-10 20:46 ` Jeff Brasen
2019-12-11 9:54 ` [edk2-discuss] " Wang, Sunny (HPS SW)
2019-12-11 14:00 ` Ni, Ray
2019-12-12 17:52 ` Jeff Brasen
2019-12-17 20:15 ` Ashish Singhal
2019-12-18 3:54 ` [edk2-discuss] " Wang, Sunny (HPS SW)
2019-12-18 8:43 ` Ni, Ray
2019-11-07 7:01 ` Ni, Ray
2019-11-05 9:33 ` Laszlo Ersek
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-list from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=BYAPR12MB346238204D93AE9FD588F0D6CB790@BYAPR12MB3462.namprd12.prod.outlook.com \
--to=devel@edk2.groups.io \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox