On 11/02/2017 09:20 AM, Chee, Tien Fong wrote:
> On Rab, 2017-11-01 at 10:26 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> On 11/01/2017 10:18 AM, tien.fong.c...@intel.com wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Tien Fong Chee <tien.fong.c...@intel.com>
>>>
>>> Generic firmware loader framework contains some common
>>> functionality
>>> which is factored out from splash loader. It is reusable by any
>>> specific driver file system firmware loader. Specific driver file
>>> system
>>> firmware loader handling can be defined with both weak function
>>> fsloader_preprocess and fs_loading.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tien Fong Chee <tien.fong.c...@intel.com>
>>> ---
>>> common/Makefile | 1 +
>>> common/load_fs.c | 217
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> include/load_fs.h | 38 ++++++++++
>>> 3 files changed, 256 insertions(+)
>>> create mode 100644 common/load_fs.c
>>> create mode 100644 include/load_fs.h
>> [...]
>>
>>>
>>> +int flash_select_fs_dev(struct flash_location *location)
>> Why does everything have flash_ prefix ?
>>
> I can remove the flash_ prefix, this generic FS loader should support
> for all filesystem instead of flash.
>
>> I also mentioned the API should copy the linux firmware loader API.
>>
> If i'm not mistaken, you are referring firmware loader API in this
> link https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/f007cad159e99fa2acd3b2e9364
> fbb32ad28b971/drivers/base/firmware_class.c#L1264.
>
> Actually we have almost same framework in filesystem loader portion,
> just different implementation, and Linux firmware loader is more
> specific to Linux environment such as hard code path searching in RFS.
> The generic FS loader in this patch is much more flexible, let user to
> define their own prefer implementation.
> Linux FS firmware loader <---> U-Boot FS firmware loader
> -------------------------- ---------------------------
> 1) request_firmware flash_load_fs
> 2) _request_firmware_prepare weak fsloader_preprocess
> 3) fw_get_filesystem_firmware weak fs_loading
The API should be the same or very similar to make porting of drivers
from Linux easy and allow people to know only one API, not two.
>>> + int res;
>>> +
>>> + switch (location->storage) {
>>> + case FLASH_STORAGE_MMC:
>>> + res = fs_set_blk_dev("mmc", location->devpart,
>>> FS_TYPE_ANY);
>>> + break;
>>> + case FLASH_STORAGE_USB:
>>> + res = fs_set_blk_dev("usb", location->devpart,
>>> FS_TYPE_ANY);
>>> + break;
>>> + case FLASH_STORAGE_SATA:
>>> + res = fs_set_blk_dev("sata", location->devpart,
>>> FS_TYPE_ANY);
>>> + break;
>>> + case FLASH_STORAGE_NAND:
>>> + if (location->ubivol != NULL)
>>> + res = fs_set_blk_dev("ubi", NULL,
>>> FS_TYPE_UBIFS);
>>> + else
>>> + res = -ENODEV;
>>> + break;
>>> + default:
>>> + error("Error: unsupported location storage.\n");
>>> + return -ENODEV;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + if (res)
>>> + error("Error: could not access storage.\n");
>>> +
>>> + return res;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +#ifndef CONFIG_SPL_BUILD
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_USB_STORAGE
>> This looks wrong, the USB can be supported in SPL no problem. And
>> this
> Technically, USB can be supported in SPL, but the build for USB in SPL
> is not supported yet.
>> USB init shouldn't be duplicated here IMO.
>>
> This is just for the case USB init is not yet started, but loader is
> called 1st.
I am not asking WHY this is needed. I suspect we have this code
somewhere already, so it's a duplicate here.
--
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
