On 10/11/22 01:49, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Heinrich,
On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 at 14:05, Heinrich Schuchardt
<heinrich.schucha...@canonical.com> wrote:
On 10/3/22 18:44, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Heinrich,
On Mon, 3 Oct 2022 at 10:33, Heinrich Schuchardt
<heinrich.schucha...@canonical.com> wrote:
On 10/3/22 16:57, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Heinrich,
On Mon, 3 Oct 2022 at 03:36, Heinrich Schuchardt
<heinrich.schucha...@canonical.com> wrote:
On the sandbox I run:
=> setenv efi_selftest block device
=> bootefi selftest
and see the following output:
** Bad device specification host 0 **
Couldn't find partition host 0:0
Cannot read EFI system partition
Running
=> lsblk
yields
Block Driver Devices
-----------------------------
efi_blk : efiloader 0
ide_blk : <none>
mmc_blk : mmc 2, mmc 1, mmc 0
nvme-blk : <none>
sandbox_host_blk : <none>
scsi_blk : <none>
usb_storage_blk : <none>
virtio-blk : <none>
So a efi_blk device was mistaken for a host device.
I continue with
=> host bind 0 ../sandbox.img
=> ls host 0:1
and get the following output:
13 hello.txt
7 u-boot.txt
2 file(s), 0 dir(s)
This is the content of efiblock 0:1 and not of host 0:1 (sic!).
The uclass of the parent device is irrelevant for the determination of the
uclass of the block device. We must use the uclass stored in the block
device descriptor.
This issue has been raised repeatedly:
[PATCH 1/1] block: fix blk_get_devnum_by_typename()
https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20220802094933.69170-1-heinrich.schucha...@canonical.com/
[PATCH 1/1] blk: simplify blk_get_devnum_by_typename()
https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20211023140647.7661-1-heinrich.schucha...@canonical.com/
Yes and you were not able/willing to take on the required work, so
this carried on longer than it should have. I finally did this myself
and it is now in -next.
The refactoring was orthogonal to the problem that I reported and which
you unfortunately did not consider in the process.
Well it involved using if_type to work around a problem, just making
it harder to get rid of. Overall I am in favour of a faster pace of
migration that we have been following and it would help if people took
on some of this, instead of fixing their little issue.
So we might finally be able to fix this problem properly, since
if_type is mostly just a work-around concept in -next, with just the
fake uclass_id being used at present.
Can you use if_type_to_uclass_id() here, which is the work-around
function for now?
This function does not exist in origin/next. We won't apply this patch
in the 2022-10 cycle.
I think I mean conv_uclass_id() which is the new name.
Let's fix the bug first before thinking about future refactoring.
You may determine the uclass ID for field bdev in struct blk_desc using
function device_get_uclass_id() when refactoring.
So if you call conv_uclass_id() (without any other refactoring) does
that fix the problem?
Except for UCLASS_USB that function is a NOP. How could it help to
differentiate between devices with the same parent device?
It can't. But the root node should not have UCLASS_BLK children. I
think I mentioned that a few months back?
Would you agree that blk_get_devnum_by_uclass_idname() should not look
at the parent but on the actual device?
No, looking at the parent is exactly what it should do. A block device
is generic, to the extent possible. Its methods are implemented in the
parent uclass and are tightly bound to it. See for example
U_BOOT_DRIVER(mmc_blk) in the MMC uclass.
Let's look at an MMC device
root_driver/soc/mmc@1c0f000/m...@1c0f000.blk is a block device.
What do we need to find out that it can be addressed as mmc 0? The
driver is mmc_blk and its index is 0. We don't need any information
about the parent device at all.
Unfortunately this confusion is my fault since I used the root device
for the sandbox block devices. That was a convenience and a way to
reduce somewhat the crushing load of driver model migration. But the
time for that convenience is gone and we should create a sandbox host
parent node for the sandbox block devices and tidy up EFI too.
The only confusion is in the current blk_get_devnum_by_uclass_idname()
code looking into the parent device.
The parent device is totally irrelevant here. Stop using it.
Best regards
Heinrich
