On 25.01.19 10:18, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 09:52:31AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote: >> >> >> On 25.01.19 09:27, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: >>> Alex, >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 10:51:29AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>> On 01/22/2019 08:39 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 >>>> >>>> ... and then we need to create our own sub object model around the >>>> UCLASS_EFI devices again. I' not convinced that's a great idea yet :). I >>>> really see little reason not to just expose every dm device as EFI handle. >>>> Things would plug in quite naturally I think. >>> >>> You said that the ultimate goal is to remove all efi_object data. >>> Do you think that all the existing efi_object can be mapped to >>> one of existing u-boot uclass devices? >>> >>> If so, what would be an real entity of a UEFI handle? >>> struct udevice *? >>> >>> But Simon seems not to agree to adding any UEFI-specific members >>> in struct udevice. >> >> I think we'll have to experiment with both approaches. I personally >> would like to have struct udevice * be the UEFI handle, yes. >> >>> >>>> But either way, someone would need to sit down and prototype things to be >>>> sure. >>>> >>> >>> The most simplest prototype would include >>> * event mechanism (just registration and execution of hook/handler) >>> event: udevice creation (and deletion) >>> * efi_disk hook for udevice(UCLASS_BLK) creation >>> * modified block device's enumeration code, say, scsi_scan(), >>> to add an event hook at udevice creation >>> * removing efi_disk_register() from efi_init_obj_list() >>> * Optionally(?) UCLASS_PARTITION >>> (Partition udevices would be created in part_init().) >> >> Almost. >> >> The simplest prototype would be to add a struct efi_object into struct >> udevice. Then whenever we're looping over efi_obj_list in the code, we >> additionally loop over all udevices to find the handle. > > Ah, yes. You're going further :) > >> Then, we could slowly give the uclasses explicit knowledge of uefi >> protocols. So most of the logic of efi_disk_register() would move into >> (or get called by) drivers/block/blk-uclass.c:blk_create_device(). > > Via event? Otherwise, we cannot decouple u-boot and UEFI world.
For a prototype, just make it explicit and see how far that gets us. >> Instead of creating diskobj and adding calling efi_add_handle(), we >> could then just use existing data structure from the udevice (and its >> platdata). > > I don't have good confidence that we can remove struct efi_disk_obj, > at least, for the time being as some of its members are quite UEFI-specific. Maybe we can move them into struct blk_desc? It's a matter of experimenting I guess. > >> >> Does this make sense? Less events, more implicity :). > > I'll go for it. Thanks a lot :). Feel free to pick an easier target for starters too if you prefer. Alex _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
