Simon,
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 10:58:53AM +1300, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Heinrich,
>
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 at 10:05, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.g...@gmx.de> wrote:
> >
> > On 1/22/19 8:39 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > Hi Alex,
> > >
> > > On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 at 22:08, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 22.01.19 09:29, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> > >>> Alex, Simon,
> > >>>
> > >>> Apologies for my slow response on this matter,
> > >>>
> > >>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 08:57:05AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 11.01.19 05:29, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> > >>>>> Alex, Heinrich and Simon,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thank you for your comments, they are all valuable but also make me
> > >>>>> confused as different people have different requirements :)
> > >>>>> I'm not sure that all of us share the same *ultimate* goal here.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The shared ultimate goal is to "merge" (as Simon put it) dm and efi
> > >>>> objects.
> > >>>
> > >>> I don't still understand what "merge" means very well.
> > >>
> > >> It basically means that "struct efi_object" moves into "struct udevice".
> > >> Every udevice instance of type UCLASS_BLK would expose the block and
> > >> device_path protocols.
> > >>
> > >> This will be a slightly bigger rework, but eventually allows us to
> > >> basically get rid of efi_init_obj_list() I think.
> > >
> > > I envisaged something like:
> > >
> > > - EFI objects have their own UCLASS_EFI uclass
> > > - DM uclasses which support EFI would create a child EFI device (e.g.
> > > a UCLASS_EFI child of each UCLASS_BLK device)
> > > - EFI-uclass devices would thus be bound as needed
> > > - Probing an EFI device would causes its parents to be probed
> > > - We can use all the existing DM hooks (probe, remove, parent/child
> > > data, operations), to implement EFI things
> > >
> > > I'm assuming that a small percentage of devices would have EFI
> > > children, so that this is more efficient than trying to merge the data
> > > structures. It also allows EFI to maintain some separate from the core
> > > DM code.
> >
> > Dear Simon,
> >
> > thanks to your suggestions.
> >
> > I am not yet convinced that an UCLASS_EFI child device will be helpful.
> > It is not an EFI object.
> >
> > A DM uclass is the equivalent to an EFI driver, i.e. a handle with the
> > EFI_DRIVER_BINDING_PROTOCOL installed on it [1]. So the natural thing
> > for a uclass supporting EFI would be to provide such a handle.
> >
> > For the actual devices we also need handles.
>
> Yes but I understand why this is problematic?
>
> >
> > In the EFI world partitions are devices. How does this fit into your
> > picture?
>
> Perhaps we could consider adding a UCLASS_PARTITION? The rework of the
> FS layer may not be too much - at least once we drop the non-BLK code
> (as you say at [1]).
IMO, instead of considering UCLASS_PARTITION,
1) add IF_TYPE_BLK_PARTITION and set its type_class_id to UCLASS_BLK
So any partition has a parent node (I don't know the correct language
in DM world) that is a real raw disk device, and yet is seen
as a UCLASS_BLK device, or
2) create a block device (blk_desc) for each partition, either in bind/probe
or in enumerating devices, as I mentioned in the previous e-mail
What's different between (1) and (2),
we may enumerate block devices and identify the given one by scanning
a UCLASS_BLK list with (1), while by scanning a blk_desc list with (2)
at do_load()/fs_set_blk_dev().
# In any way, we will need
a) a bi-directional link between
UCLASS_BLK efi_obj
or and or
blk_desc efi_disk_obj, and
b) a event notification mechanism, in your language, as as to maintain
(create/delete) those links
If you agree to approach (1) or (2), I will be able to start a prototyping.
-Takahiro Akashi
> >
> > [1] https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2019-January/354359.html
> > [RFC] Device model for block devices - integration with EFI subsystem
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Heinrich
> >
> > >
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>>> But we have this annoying interim state where we would lose a few
> > >>>> boards
> > >>>> because they haven't been converted to DM. That's what keeps us from
> > >>>> it.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I think what this discussion boils down to is that someone needs to
> > >>>> start prototyping the DM/EFI integration. Start off with a simple
> > >>>> subsystem, like BLK.
> > >>>
> > >>> Even in the current implementation,
> > >>> * UEFI disk is implemented using UCLASS_BLK devices
> > >>> (We can ignore !CONFIG_BLK case now as we have agreed.)
> > >>> * UEFI-specific block device can be seen as UCLASS_BLK/IF_TYPE_EFI
> > >>>
> > >>> So how essentially different is the *ultimate* goal from the current
> > >>> form
> > >>> regarding block devices?
> > >>
> > >> The ultimate goal is that efi_disk_register() and efi_obj_list disappear.
> > >>
> > >> Functionality wise we should be 100% identical to today, so all test
> > >> cases would still apply the same way as they do now. This is purely
> > >> internal rework, nothing visible to UEFI payloads.
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > >>
> > >>> In order to identify UEFI disks with u-boot devices transparently, we
> > >>> will
> > >>> have to have some sort of *hook* (or hotplug in Alex's language?),
> > >>> either
> > >>> in create_block_devices or bind/probe? I don't know, but Simon seems
> > >>> to be in denial about this idea.
> > >>
> > >> Well, if a udevice *is* an efi device, we no longer need hooks. The
> > >> object list would simply change.
> > >>
> > >> We may still need to have event notifications at that stage, but that's
> > >> a different story.
> > >
> > > Yes, it's something that I think will need to be added to DM. I
> > > haven't got to this as I have not run into an important use case yet.
> > > Maybe something like:
> > >
> > > Controlled by CONFIG_EVENT
> > >
> > > - int dev_ev_register(struct udevice *dev, enum event_t type,
> > > event_handler_func_t handler, void *userdata)
> > >
> > > which calls handler(struct udevice *dev, void *userdata) when an event is
> > > fired
> > >
> > > - int dev_ev_unregister() to unregister
> > >
> > > - int dev_ev_send(struct udevice *dev, enum struct event_info *info)
> > >
> > > which sends events to registered listeners.
> > >
> > > struct event_info {
> > > enum event_t type;
> > > union {
> > > struct ev_data_probed probed;
> > > struct ev_data_removed removed;
> > > ...
> > > } d;
> > > };
> > >
> > >>
> > >> As transitioning period, we could probably implement 2 efi object roots:
> > >> efi_obj_list as well as the udevice based one. Every piece of code that
> > >> iterates through devices then just iterates over both. That way we
> > >> should be able to slowly move devices from the old object model to the
> > >> new one.
> > >
> > > Will the uclass I mentioned above you can iterate through UCLASS_EFI
> > > and thus you have a list of EFI devices.
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Simon
> > >
> >
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
