On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 03:59:13PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 at 15:54, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 03:38:07PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 at 15:24, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 12:15:42PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > > > This series adds a standard way of passing information between > > > > > different > > > > > firmware phases. This already exists in U-Boot at a very basic level, > > > > > in > > > > > the form of a bloblist containing an spl_handoff structure, but the > > > > > intent > > > > > here is to define something useful across projects. > > > > > > > > > > The need for this is growing as firmware fragments into multiple > > > > > binaries > > > > > each with its own purpose. Without any run-time connection, we must > > > > > rely > > > > > on build-time settings which are brittle and painful to keep in sync. > > > > > > > > > > This feature is named 'standard passage' since the name is more unique > > > > > than many others that could be chosen, it is a passage in the sense > > > > > that > > > > > information is flowing from one place to another and it is standard, > > > > > because that is what we want to create. > > > > > > > > > > The implementation is mostly a pointer to a bloblist in a register, > > > > > with > > > > > an extra register to point to a devicetree, for more complex data. > > > > > This > > > > > should cover all cases (small memory footprint as well as complex data > > > > > flow) and be easy enough to implement on all architectures. > > > > > > > > > > The emphasis is on enabling open communcation between binaries, not > > > > > enabling passage of secret, undocumented data, although this is > > > > > possible > > > > > in a private environment. > > > > > > > > > > This series is available at u-boot-dm/pass-working > > > > > > > > Before I get into further feedback, my first bit of feedback is that > > > > this breaks transfer list support. I didn't check this on Raymond's QEMU > > > > but did test it on vexpress_fvp_bloblist and expect QEMU is also broken. > > > > The most likely reason I think is: > > > > > passage: spl: Support passing the passage to U-Boot > > > > [snip] > > > > > xferlist: Drop old xferlist code > > > > > > CI passes for me: > > > > > > https://source.denx.de/u-boot/custodians/u-boot-dm/-/pipelines/25806 > > > > Sure, good, I was wondering about some of the other changes. > > > > As a reminder there are a number of CI labs (of which none are "Linaro", > > they still need to get moving on that, yes I'm calling them out here as > > a reminder to them) that monitor mainline directly (I push a tree, it > > triggers, they speak up if there's specific breakage) and indirectly > > (Toradex has given talks about their CI which includes weekly mainline > > U-Boot builds) those reports are equally as important as our GitLab and > > Azure pipelines. > > I think my QEMU test is a good approach, since we can make it work on > any arch in CI, without need particular hardware.
It's one of those "yes, and" cases. QEMU is good. This test platform is just a different emulator, not QEMU. > > > > These are not the same. And they should be. And they should be using > > > > the register layout / values other projects use today. > > > > > > > > And I am bluntly uninterested in who shuffled the registers around and > > > > made them no longer agree. What TF-A is doing now is what's in the wild > > > > now. And shame on them if there wasn't a good reason for changing things > > > > either. > > > > > > They are the same and any difference is a bug, quite possibly in my > > > code. I am hoping that Raymond can point it out, as I believe I am > > > following the spec that we created. > > > > > > The xferlist is a little harder to maintain and it has a bit of an > > > unusual API. It's better to use global_data for this case. > > > > Yes, I'm not completely sure where the bug is but your code breaks the > > other platforms and you should have enough information at this point > > to run and reproduce it. If it's weirdly only vexpress_fvp_bloblist that > > breaks, I can tell you how that's run with transfer list. I can't just > > point CI at it because... nasm.us is down which means that coreboot > > can't build from source which means I can't rebuild our docker > > containers to include the TF-A blobs too. > > Yes, I gave up with the TF-A thing, but when I hear from Raymond I'll > give it another crack. It can't be that hard. There are just too many > 'in flight' things at present. Well, the good news would be that vexpress_fvp_bloblist needs nothing "in flight". It's already in U-Boot. It's already in TF-A (build as documented in U-Boot for vexpress_fvp, add TRANSFER_LIST=1). It's just not in our CI right this second for reasons I mentioned above. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
