On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 04:01:38PM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > On 6/29/21 2:56 PM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 12:08:27PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 at 11:27, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 10:26:35AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > Hi Heinrich, > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 at 09:20, Heinrich Schuchardt > > > > > <xypron.g...@gmx.de> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/28/21 4:18 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Tom, Mark, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 at 07:37, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 10:38:50AM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > > > > > > > > From: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > > > > > > > > > > Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 19:48:34 -0600 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It has come to light that EFI_LOADER adds an extraordinary > > > > > > > > > > amount of > > > > > > > > > > code to U-Boot. For example, with nokia_rx51 the size delta > > > > > > > > > > is about > > > > > > > > > > 90KB. About 170 boards explicitly disable the option, but > > > > > > > > > > is is clear > > > > > > > > > > that many more could, thus saving image size and boot time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > EFI_LOADER used to be a lot smaller. It is great to see that > > > > > > > > > over the > > > > > > > > > years UEFI support has become more complete, but a lot of > > > > > > > > > that new > > > > > > > > > code implements features that are not at all essential for > > > > > > > > > just > > > > > > > > > booting an OS from storage. If that growth leads to the > > > > > > > > > suggestion to > > > > > > > > > disable EFI_LOADER completely by default, we're putting the > > > > > > > > > cart > > > > > > > > > before the horse. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, I see I forgot to prefix my patch with RFC, but I hadn't > > > > > > > > found > > > > > > > > EFI_LOADER being used in the wild on armv7, but wasn't sure > > > > > > > > about the > > > > > > > > BSD families. I did see that Debian doesn't use it, and that > > > > > > > > Armbian > > > > > > > > doesn't even use it on aarch64. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The current situation is affecting U-Boot's image as a > > > > > > > > > > svelt bootloader. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really? I know UEFI has a bad reputation in the Open Source > > > > > > > > > world, > > > > > > > > > and some of its Microsoft-isms are really annoying (yay > > > > > > > > > UCS-2). But > > > > > > > > > it works, it provides a standardized approach across several > > > > > > > > > platforms > > > > > > > > > (ARMv7, AMRv8, RISC-V) and the industry seems to like it. > > > > > > > > > Personally > > > > > > > > > I'd wish the industry had standardized on Open Firmware > > > > > > > > > instead, but > > > > > > > > > that ship sailed a long time ago... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I find it hard to imagine that 90k is a serious amount of > > > > > > > > > storage for > > > > > > > > > something that is going to include a multi-MB Linux kernel. > > > > > > > > > This > > > > > > > > > isn't code that lives in SPL or TPL where severe size > > > > > > > > > restrictions > > > > > > > > > apply. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In one of those cases where I need to pop back in to the other > > > > > > > > (Nokia > > > > > > > > N900 specific) thread and see if the big size reduction really > > > > > > > > was just > > > > > > > > disabling EFI_LOADER, it's perhaps just one of those "fun" > > > > > > > > things about > > > > > > > > Kconfig and anything other than "make oldconfig" for spotting > > > > > > > > new config > > > > > > > > options that default to enabled. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes it will be interesting to see what you find there. My results > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > nokia_rx51 were something like this: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default > > > > > > > arm: (for 1/1 boards) all +129370.0 bss +1136.0 data > > > > > > > +7399.0 > > > > > > > rodata +10989.0 text +109846.0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without ebbr > > > > > > > arm: (for 1/1 boards) all +38460.0 bss +1040.0 data > > > > > > > +2375.0 > > > > > > > rodata +5333.0 text +29712.0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with various other things: > > > > > > > CONFIG_OF_LIBFDT_ASSUME_MASK=7 > > > > > > > # CONFIG_OF_TRANSLATE is not set > > > > > > > # CONFIG_SIMPLE_BUS is not set > > > > > > > # CONFIG_TI_SYSC is not set > > > > > > > # CONFIG_CMD_FDT is not set > > > > > > > > > > > > > > arm: (for 1/1 boards) all +19170.0 bss -16.0 data +360.0 > > > > > > > rodata > > > > > > > +3274.0 text +15552.0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Mark, in the same email:) > > > > > > > > > FIT simply isn't fit for purpose (pun intended). It only > > > > > > > > > really works > > > > > > > > > for booting Linux, and forces people to combine u-boot, > > > > > > > > > kernel, > > > > > > > > > initial ramdisk and other firmware components into a single > > > > > > > > > image. > > > > > > > > > That is really undesirable as: > > > > > > > > > - This makes it sigificantly harder to update individual > > > > > > > > > components of > > > > > > > > > such an image. Making it hard to update a kernel is > > > > > > > > > obviously a > > > > > > > > > serious security risk. > > > > > > > > > - This makes it impossible to build an OS install image that > > > > > > > > > works om > > > > > > > > > multiple boards/SoCs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would really like to understand this better. The whole thing is > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > complete mystery to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Firstly I have sometimes fiddled with booting other OSes using > > > > > > > FIT. It > > > > > > > seemed OK. I can't see why it only works with Linux. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Secondly, I don't expect that U-Boot itself would be in the FIT. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thirdly, do you really want the kernel and initrd to be separate? > > > > > > > At > > > > > > > least in the systems I have used, they are built together, even > > > > > > > having > > > > > > > the same name, e.g.: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > initrd.img-5.10.40-1rodete1-amd64 > > > > > > > System.map-5.10.40-1rodete1-amd64 > > > > > > > vmlinuz-5.10.28-1rodete2-amd64 > > > > > > > > > > > > I have not hit any distro that builds FIT images. All install > > > > > > vmlinux > > > > > > and initrd as separate files. > > > > > > > > > > > > Why would you want to change that? > > > > > > > > > > Well there is no point in having two files if one will do. Also it > > > > > allows for a hash / signature check. > > > > > > > > The question of "how great would it be and how many problems would it > > > > have solved if FIT images had become popular" is one for another time. > > > > It will always have its use cases and users but never the broad adoption > > > > many of us felt it should have. Bringing it up in this context won't > > > > change that. > > > > > > I see Peter's reply below so will make time to dig into this and > > > understand the problems with FIT better. I feel that EFI comes with > > > all sorts of problems so I'm far from convinced, at this point. Sorry. > > > > It seems to me that we are discussing three different things: > > - the code size increase by enabling UEFI interfaces > > - how the UEFI interface be implemented on U-Boot > > - The primary (or default/standard) boot mechanism in the future > > > > I don't think they are totally independent, but we'd better > > distinguish them some how in the following discussions. > > > > > > > > > > I'm saying this because I think there are some important technical > > > > questions within U-Boot to resolve because the EFI loader part of U-Boot > > > > is critical to our long term future. And DM is an important part of our > > > > internal design and we're (probably later than I should have) pulling > > > > out the parts that haven't been updated so that we can deliver on some > > > > of the overall promise of DM better, too. > > > > > > Yes, migration has certainly been slow. As you know I mostly stopped > > > pushing it a few years back when I saw all the reluctance. I'm very > > > pleased you are taking that on and I think it will help a lot. > > > > I posted this patch[1] two years ago and I thought that we had had > > some sort of consensus that UEFI interfaces be integrated more elegantly > > with DM in the future. > > > > So I was a bit surprised with Heinrich's recent patch. > > > > In [1], I was trying to define all the UEFI handles, including some > > protocols?, as DM objects. > > I thought that it was the best way for unifying the two worlds even if > > there are no corresponding *notions* in the existing DM objects. > > > > [1] https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2019-February/357923.html > > > > -Takahiro Akashi > > You wrote yourself: "bootefi doesn't work with this patch set yet". > > Your series completely disregarded UEFI and DM logic, e.g. you defined > DM devices per protocol. > > You tried to integrate UEFI and DM world at an inappropriate level: > Instead of changing DM block device uclass you touched individual > drivers like USB and SCSI completely disregarding all other block device > classes.
Yes, I can agree, but the point is not there. Why not discuss how UEFI and DM be integrated instead as Simon suggested? -Takahiro Akashi > Best regards > > Heinrich > > > > > > > > If what you say comes to pass, it is even more important that EFI is > > > more integrated, rather than being a bolt on. Thanks largely to > > > Heinrich, the tests are in quite good shape, so refactoring should be > > > feasible. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Simon >
