On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 02:16:52PM +0200, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 at 18:30, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Oct 19, 2024 at 05:49:40AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 at 15:30, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 12:48:31PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 at 12:04, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 11:20:52AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 at 10:33, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 09:01:03AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Heinrich, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 at 22:07, Heinrich Schuchardt > > > > > > > > > <xypron.g...@gmx.de> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 18. Oktober 2024 01:24:02 MESZ schrieb Simon Glass > > > > > > > > > > <s...@chromium.org>: > > > > > > > > > > >We want to keep track of images which are loaded, or those > > > > > > > > > > >which could > > > > > > > > > > >perhaps be loaded. This will make it easier to manage > > > > > > > > > > >memory allocation, > > > > > > > > > > >as well as permit removal of the EFI set_efi_bootdev() > > > > > > > > > > >hack. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll change this 'hack' to 'feature'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, keep in mind that files can be loaded manually, > > > > > > > > > > e.g. via the dhcp, the wget, and the loady commands. These > > > > > > > > > > are outside bootflows. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, this series is only going to help if bootstd is used. > > > > > > > > > For ad-hoc > > > > > > > > > use, EFI will need to rely on the above feature, at least > > > > > > > > > until > > > > > > > > > someone can think of another solution. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps I need to try and be clearer here than I might have > > > > > > > > been in the > > > > > > > > past. The consensus among off the shelf free software operating > > > > > > > > systems > > > > > > > > is "just give me an EFI interface". This simplifies things on > > > > > > > > their end > > > > > > > > if regardless of architecture it's the same interface. This > > > > > > > > means that > > > > > > > > in U-Boot we need to treat EFI as one of the primary > > > > > > > > interfaces. Not a > > > > > > > > novelty. Not a "some people might use". It is a frequent and > > > > > > > > commonly > > > > > > > > used feature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, EFI is everywhere and growing. All the more reason to tidy up > > > > > > > this piece. I would like to see bootmgr use this new API, for > > > > > > > example. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how does this comment affect this patch? > > > > > > > > > > > > Because at the very high level, I wonder if I made a mistake a few > > > > > > years > > > > > > back. As I understand it, the nominal case is "bootefi bootmgr". I > > > > > > was > > > > > > saying at the time that perhaps bootstd can just fire that off, and > > > > > > move > > > > > > on. Now it seems like we're going along the path of re-inventing > > > > > > that, > > > > > > and not integrating well with it either. > > > > > > > > > > In what way are we re-inventing that? bootstd supports lots of > > > > > different ways of booting, not just EFI. > > > > > > > > At the high level, bootflow scan is re-implementing "bootefi bootmgr". > > > > but handling non-EFI payloads. > > > > > > bootstd is about replacing the distro scripts, not bootmgr. > > > > And the distro scripts are functionally replaced by "bootefi bootmgr", > > outside of bootstd. > > But that doesn't support anything other than EFI apps, so isn't useful > for when EFI is not wanted.
Yes, the distro scripts wanted to move more firmly / quickly in this direction. For all of the reasons they've elaborated before. > > > > > Also I hope that one day EFI > > > > > will be implemented more as part of U-Boot than as a bolt-on, so will > > > > > make use of bootflows, etc. > > > > > > > > And stuff like that is why I said what I said in here first. To me it > > > > sounds like you keep implying it's a hack that's not well integrated. > > > > When it's honestly at this point gotten more traction than FIT images > > > > have I think (as much as I wish FIT images had "won", it's like VHS vs > > > > Betamax, to bring in another technology metaphor). > > > > > > The 'hack' I was referring to is efi_set_bootdev(), not EFI_LOADER as a > > > whole! > > > > I wasn't clear enough, sorry. I didn't mean just in this series where > > you referred to storing the needed property as a hack but rather > > "bolt-on" in what I quoted and "tidy up this" and "tidy up that". I'm > > just saying what impression your words leave with me, and quite possibly > > others. > > OK I will try to be more gentle with my language. Thanks. > > > > > > So, to try and bring things back together. If U-Boot decides to load > > > > > > $FOO from device $BAR, at that common point is where we need to: > > > > > > - Is there an lmb for the location this is supposed to go to (for > > > > > > the if > > > > > > we know it, entire size)? > > > > > > - Note down everything else we know, now. > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This means that we can note down enough stuff so that EFI can > > > > > > construct > > > > > > the path it needs. And if we're being told a filesystem, that > > > > > > filename > > > > > > is good enough for the IH_TYPE thing you're wanting, or at least a > > > > > > good > > > > > > chunk of it I hope. > > > > > > > > > > You want me to ignore the type that I know (kernel, ramdisk, logo, > > > > > etc.) and infer the type from a filename? Why? > > > > > > > > No, I want you to save and display the filename. That's probably much > > > > more useful when debugging than "kernel". If you actually know some > > > > other type information (ie extlinux.conf says ...) then yes, it too can > > > > be stored as that's useful too. > > > > > > The filename is already saved in bootflow->filename, and now it is in > > > struct bootflow_img. > > > > OK. But that's not generic enough. > > How about we see how things work out here rather than giving up at the > start? It is pretty clear in my head, so far. I'd really rather not since it looks like it's starting in the wrong direction. I really do not understand why when we load the file / do the network request / read the flash area / etc is the wrong place to start recording the information about what we load. > > > > > For EFI there is only an EFI application. It will always just be a PE > > > > > file. We don't really know what it is, as someone pointed out earlier. > > > > > Maybe one day we will check to see if it is a UKI and pull things out > > > > > of it. But then, it would be component parts (kernel, ramdisk, etc.) > > > > > so I would want to add them as images. > > > > > > > > I don't see why yet, honestly. > > > > > > For the cmdline, 'bootflow cmdline' allows editing it, for example. > > > For a logo we can display it in the menu. The filename doesn't tell us > > > what it is. > > > > There may, or may not, be further context clues about what a blob is, > > yes, and we should make use of them. But we may not have them. Frankly > > for a logo we probably need to have dealt with that upon initializing > > the display, so earlier in the process. But this is all getting away > > from the point I'm trying to make. > > > > > > > > It also means that since it's at the most common point, it doesn't > > > > > > matter if we were in an EFI application, a boot script, a bootmeth > > > > > > or > > > > > > someone at the cmdline doing "load mmc 0:1 /boot/Image > > > > > > $kernel_addr_r". > > > > > > > > > > For that case (at the cmdline), bootstd is not currently running. Are > > > > > you suggesting that bootstd could pick up these things and record > > > > > them? If so, then yes, definitely, I want to do that. This series is > > > > > the starting point for that. If you are suggesting something else, > > > > > then I think I have lost you at this point. > > > > > > > > Yes, I think I lost you somewhere, but I'm not sure how. What I am > > > > saying is that since everything at some point calls down to say > > > > fs_read() to read a file, that is the common point to note what > > > > we're doing. Not the load command, not the bootmeth, not the EFI_LOADER > > > > call. > > > > > > Perhaps what you are missing is that bootstd is a proper boot > > > implementation for U-Boot, where U-Boot knows what is going on. > > > Ignoring that information and just hooking into fs_read() is like > > > throwing away the plan and trying to recreate it from photographs. > > > > > > That said, yes I can hook into fs_read() and store that info, as it is > > > better than nothing, if bootstd is not being used, or there is a > > > script. > > > > Maybe we need to throw out the plan and start over then? Since you seem > > to not be accounting for the rest of the common paths and assuming > > that your design can just be used as-is for them despite not taking them > > in to account in the design in the first place. Hooking in at around > > fs_read() or thereabouts is likely where we need to be at least starting > > some of this so that we do know information that we want to preserve. > > Similarly, there's the common path for "grab a file via HTTP(s)" and > > that is where we should be recording information for network loads. We > > can then augment that if it was a pxelinux.cfg file we grabbed or > > something else, but that's the common place to start gathering > > information. > > Here's what I see as the key point: bootstd knows what is being > booted. It knows that the kernel is a kernel and where it came from. > If there is a logo or cmdline, it knows about that too. It is sort-of > the point of bootstd to make booting more automatic and deterministic. > Where people are using scripts and ad-hoc ways of booting, they just > aren't going to get the same level of control and visibility as > bootstd can provide. > > I think I recall having exactly this discussion before? > > I will see if I can construct a small series to show what an ad-hoc > bootflow might look like. It will at least collect loaded files into > one place so they can be examined, etc. Yes, perhaps some series that shows what works / doesn't work and how it works would be helpful. I'd really like to see where you're starting your abstractions from. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
