On 07/08/2015 09:19 PM, Sharma Bhupesh wrote: ...
What about UDF for non-FAT ESP FS? [...] http://sourceforge.net/p/edk2/mailman/message/33187675/
Hmmm. Does UDF support flash devices like a NOR or NAND flash, which
is usually
the default booting source on most ARM based boards. AFAIK, UDF is
mainly a mechanism
suited best for optical disks and DVDs, so I am not sure it can
support the
usual boot devices on ARM based boards, like: - NOR flash. - NAND flash. - SD card. - SPI flash.
So, while we are on the right track when we say that Linux-only FS,
may not find many
takers in the EDK2 world, but does UDF solve the issue of handling
flashes which are the primary
boot sources on ARM platforms, rather than HDDs or Optical Disks on a x86?
Or, should we be looking at the GPIL + X11 dual-licensed licensing
format for such components like
ext2/ext3 support in future. This dual-license is already used for
licensing Linux Device-tree (see [1]).
Since X11 is pretty similar to BSD licensing, the prospect of work
licensed under this dual-license
are better in terms of re-use.
[1]
http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls208...
I've only used UDF on hard drives and discs, not flash, so I don't have an answer for you, sorry.
Note that in addition to UDF, Intel also recently contributed another UFS (Universal Flash Storage) file system to UEFI, which might be more appropriate answer.
Having an existing BSD-licensed UDF and UFS in TianoCore is nice.
http://sourceforge.net/p/edk2/mailman/message/34067176/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Flash_Storage
I'm also replying to a follow-up comment:
On 07/09/2015 06:18 AM, Leif Lindholm wrote: ...
What about UDF for non-FAT ESP FS? UDF was checked into TianoCore a while ago, so BSD licensed. Unlike FAT, I am not aware of any UDF IP issues.
FAT is still the filesystem mandated by the spec, so without FAT support, it's not really UEFI.
But that's just what UEFI currently is, defined by Microsoft, who gains from the IP issues by forcing all to use FAT forever. Linux vendors can change things by joining UEFI Forum, filing an issue, and changing UEFI. Currently, Linaro, Canonical, Red Hat, and SuSE are members of the UEFI Forum, so they can help change things. Microsoft will likely add new restrictions for Windows OEMs, but that's only the bulled section of the playground, other OEMs don't have to follow those restrictions. Convincing generic BIOS vendors to support non-FAT file systems of any type will be hard.
For some server and embedded solutions, where vendor can build their own firmware, and use won't attempt to install Windows on it, a FAT-free solution with an appropriate FS for the task would seem like an improvement to FAT-only for all future UEFI hardware (except for Apple).