Hi Takahiro, On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 at 19:31, AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.aka...@linaro.org> wrote: > > Simon, > > On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 03:41:50PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > > Hello Simon, > > > > On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 09:07:01PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > This is a patch for Takahiro to look at, just for illustration. Not ready > > > for review. > > > > Thank you for posting the draft. > > At a first glance, it looks good and I don't see any specific issue > > with your implementation. > > I said OK and functionally it should work well, but I now have > some concerns: > 1) In my current implementation, I use post_probe/pre_remove hooks > of BLK device to invoke efi callback functions. In this sense, > event(POST_PROBE/ PRE_REMOVE) seems to be a duplicated feature > in some way.
We should not be calling EFI functions from a BLK devince, unless it is an EFI block device, i.e. we should provide hooks for EFI or any other interested party to use. > 2) For the rest of uclass devices which don't utilise events yet, > device_notify() is nothing but an overhead as it always tries to > go through a list of event hooks. Yes that's true, but it can be optimised to avoid useless searches/calls, since subscribers need to specify an even they are interested in. > > Event notification can be more than just a dm feature, but ... > What's your thought here? Yes, more than just a DM feature. For example I think it could help with the initcalls we have in board_f and board_r. Regards, Simon > > -Takahiro Akashi > > > Since my code has already added DM_TAG support, I'm looking forward for > > getting your final patch. > > > > The only remaining issue is *modeling* partitions :) > > > > -Takahiro Akashi > > > > > To run the test: > > > > > > ./u-boot -T -c "ut common test_event_probe" > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > > > --- [..] Regards, Simon
