Re: [PATCH 11/35] RFC: efi: Drop code that doesn't work with driver model
Hi Heinrich,
On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 03:26, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/9/21 10:57 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Heinrich,
> >
> > On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 11:44, Heinrich Schuchardt
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 9/8/21 3:33 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> >>> This code should never have been added as it builds a new feature on top
> >>> of legacy code. Drop it and add a dependency on BLK for this feature.
> >>>
> >>> Boards which want EFI_LOADER should migrate to driver model first.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass
> >>
> >> This patch is not related to the rest of the series and the code has a
> >> different maintainer.
> >>
> >> So, please, separate it from the series.
> >
> > Who is the maintainer?
>
> Until 623b3a57976 ("efi_selftest: provide an EFI selftest application")
> there was no official maintainer for lib/efi/ but you were the main
> contributor.
>
> But with that patch directory lib/efi/ was assigned to EFI PAYLOAD.
>
> I am happy if you would continue to care about U-Boot on EFI.
I can add myself as maintainer of that part of EFI if you like. I will
include it in the v2 series. But it is a little fiddling because there
are shared files, so I will just add a few for now.
Perhaps you could be co-maintainer for the app, given your EFI
knowledge and that you review them? Also I expect they would still go
through your tree.
Regards,
Simon
Re: [PATCH 11/35] RFC: efi: Drop code that doesn't work with driver model
> From: Simon Glass
> Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 20:48:42 -0600
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 15:45, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> >
> > > Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 16:23:08 -0400
> > > From: Tom Rini
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 10:15:44PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > > > From: Simon Glass
> > > > > Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 13:57:39 -0600
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Heinrich,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 03:26, Heinrich Schuchardt
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 9/9/21 10:57 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi Heinrich,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 11:44, Heinrich Schuchardt
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On 9/8/21 3:33 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > > >>> This code should never have been added as it builds a new
> > > > > > >>> feature on top
> > > > > > >>> of legacy code. Drop it and add a dependency on BLK for this
> > > > > > >>> feature.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Boards which want EFI_LOADER should migrate to driver model
> > > > > > >>> first.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> This patch is not related to the rest of the series and the code
> > > > > > >> has a
> > > > > > >> different maintainer.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> So, please, separate it from the series.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Who is the maintainer?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Until 623b3a57976 ("efi_selftest: provide an EFI selftest
> > > > > > application")
> > > > > > there was no official maintainer for lib/efi/ but you were the main
> > > > > > contributor.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But with that patch directory lib/efi/ was assigned to EFI PAYLOAD.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am happy if you would continue to care about U-Boot on EFI.
> > > > >
> > > > > OK.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I need this patch for this series to work. You can still review
> > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > for other maintainers and in this case it is common for one
> > > > > > > maintainer
> > > > > > > to pick up the series once the others are happy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The direction of this patch is completely correct.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are some things that will have to be changed, e.g we should
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > require CONFIG_DM_ETH=y. I will work on reviewing this patch in
> > > > > > detail.
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, but why not require DM_ETH? The deadline passed a year ago.
> > > >
> > > > Because we support boards without network ports?
> > >
> > > Boards without networking should disable the relevant code, and as
> > > needed the EFI code return the proper error code?
> >
> > Yes, but it means you can't make DM_ETH a (hard) requirement for
> > EFI_LOADER support. What I mean is that it should still be possible
> > to build U-Boot with EFI_LOADER support even if DM_EFI isn't set for a
> > board. It should just result in a UEFI implementation with no network
> > support instead.
>
> I think you are misunderstanding my patch. I have:
>
> depends on DM_ETH || !NET
>
> which means that if NET is used, DM_ETH must be. I think that is reasonable.
Yes, that should be fine (Kconfig stuff doesn't always make sense to me).
Re: [PATCH 11/35] RFC: efi: Drop code that doesn't work with driver model
Hi Mark,
On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 15:45, Mark Kettenis wrote:
>
> > Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 16:23:08 -0400
> > From: Tom Rini
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 10:15:44PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > > From: Simon Glass
> > > > Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 13:57:39 -0600
> > > >
> > > > Hi Heinrich,
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 03:26, Heinrich Schuchardt
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 9/9/21 10:57 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Heinrich,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 11:44, Heinrich Schuchardt
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On 9/8/21 3:33 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > >>> This code should never have been added as it builds a new feature
> > > > > >>> on top
> > > > > >>> of legacy code. Drop it and add a dependency on BLK for this
> > > > > >>> feature.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Boards which want EFI_LOADER should migrate to driver model first.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> This patch is not related to the rest of the series and the code
> > > > > >> has a
> > > > > >> different maintainer.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> So, please, separate it from the series.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Who is the maintainer?
> > > > >
> > > > > Until 623b3a57976 ("efi_selftest: provide an EFI selftest
> > > > > application")
> > > > > there was no official maintainer for lib/efi/ but you were the main
> > > > > contributor.
> > > > >
> > > > > But with that patch directory lib/efi/ was assigned to EFI PAYLOAD.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am happy if you would continue to care about U-Boot on EFI.
> > > >
> > > > OK.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I need this patch for this series to work. You can still review
> > > > > > things
> > > > > > for other maintainers and in this case it is common for one
> > > > > > maintainer
> > > > > > to pick up the series once the others are happy.
> > > > >
> > > > > The direction of this patch is completely correct.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are some things that will have to be changed, e.g we should not
> > > > > require CONFIG_DM_ETH=y. I will work on reviewing this patch in
> > > > > detail.
> > > >
> > > > OK, but why not require DM_ETH? The deadline passed a year ago.
> > >
> > > Because we support boards without network ports?
> >
> > Boards without networking should disable the relevant code, and as
> > needed the EFI code return the proper error code?
>
> Yes, but it means you can't make DM_ETH a (hard) requirement for
> EFI_LOADER support. What I mean is that it should still be possible
> to build U-Boot with EFI_LOADER support even if DM_EFI isn't set for a
> board. It should just result in a UEFI implementation with no network
> support instead.
I think you are misunderstanding my patch. I have:
depends on DM_ETH || !NET
which means that if NET is used, DM_ETH must be. I think that is reasonable.
Regards,
Simon
Re: [PATCH 11/35] RFC: efi: Drop code that doesn't work with driver model
On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 11:45:08PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 16:23:08 -0400
> > From: Tom Rini
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 10:15:44PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > > From: Simon Glass
> > > > Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 13:57:39 -0600
> > > >
> > > > Hi Heinrich,
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 03:26, Heinrich Schuchardt
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 9/9/21 10:57 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Heinrich,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 11:44, Heinrich Schuchardt
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On 9/8/21 3:33 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > >>> This code should never have been added as it builds a new feature
> > > > > >>> on top
> > > > > >>> of legacy code. Drop it and add a dependency on BLK for this
> > > > > >>> feature.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Boards which want EFI_LOADER should migrate to driver model first.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> This patch is not related to the rest of the series and the code
> > > > > >> has a
> > > > > >> different maintainer.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> So, please, separate it from the series.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Who is the maintainer?
> > > > >
> > > > > Until 623b3a57976 ("efi_selftest: provide an EFI selftest
> > > > > application")
> > > > > there was no official maintainer for lib/efi/ but you were the main
> > > > > contributor.
> > > > >
> > > > > But with that patch directory lib/efi/ was assigned to EFI PAYLOAD.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am happy if you would continue to care about U-Boot on EFI.
> > > >
> > > > OK.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I need this patch for this series to work. You can still review
> > > > > > things
> > > > > > for other maintainers and in this case it is common for one
> > > > > > maintainer
> > > > > > to pick up the series once the others are happy.
> > > > >
> > > > > The direction of this patch is completely correct.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are some things that will have to be changed, e.g we should not
> > > > > require CONFIG_DM_ETH=y. I will work on reviewing this patch in
> > > > > detail.
> > > >
> > > > OK, but why not require DM_ETH? The deadline passed a year ago.
> > >
> > > Because we support boards without network ports?
> >
> > Boards without networking should disable the relevant code, and as
> > needed the EFI code return the proper error code?
>
> Yes, but it means you can't make DM_ETH a (hard) requirement for
> EFI_LOADER support. What I mean is that it should still be possible
> to build U-Boot with EFI_LOADER support even if DM_EFI isn't set for a
> board. It should just result in a UEFI implementation with no network
> support instead.
Yes, agreed. I was just trying to say that in the context of what DM
code EFI_LOADER can demand, the deadline for BLK has passed and
everything that didn't support it has been removed, so that's a good
requirement and area of code to clean up as needed. But DM_ETH-or-bust
isn't there, yet.
--
Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [PATCH 11/35] RFC: efi: Drop code that doesn't work with driver model
> Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 16:23:08 -0400
> From: Tom Rini
>
> On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 10:15:44PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > From: Simon Glass
> > > Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 13:57:39 -0600
> > >
> > > Hi Heinrich,
> > >
> > > On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 03:26, Heinrich Schuchardt
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 9/9/21 10:57 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > Hi Heinrich,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 11:44, Heinrich Schuchardt
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On 9/8/21 3:33 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > >>> This code should never have been added as it builds a new feature
> > > > >>> on top
> > > > >>> of legacy code. Drop it and add a dependency on BLK for this
> > > > >>> feature.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Boards which want EFI_LOADER should migrate to driver model first.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass
> > > > >>
> > > > >> This patch is not related to the rest of the series and the code has
> > > > >> a
> > > > >> different maintainer.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> So, please, separate it from the series.
> > > > >
> > > > > Who is the maintainer?
> > > >
> > > > Until 623b3a57976 ("efi_selftest: provide an EFI selftest application")
> > > > there was no official maintainer for lib/efi/ but you were the main
> > > > contributor.
> > > >
> > > > But with that patch directory lib/efi/ was assigned to EFI PAYLOAD.
> > > >
> > > > I am happy if you would continue to care about U-Boot on EFI.
> > >
> > > OK.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I need this patch for this series to work. You can still review things
> > > > > for other maintainers and in this case it is common for one maintainer
> > > > > to pick up the series once the others are happy.
> > > >
> > > > The direction of this patch is completely correct.
> > > >
> > > > There are some things that will have to be changed, e.g we should not
> > > > require CONFIG_DM_ETH=y. I will work on reviewing this patch in detail.
> > >
> > > OK, but why not require DM_ETH? The deadline passed a year ago.
> >
> > Because we support boards without network ports?
>
> Boards without networking should disable the relevant code, and as
> needed the EFI code return the proper error code?
Yes, but it means you can't make DM_ETH a (hard) requirement for
EFI_LOADER support. What I mean is that it should still be possible
to build U-Boot with EFI_LOADER support even if DM_EFI isn't set for a
board. It should just result in a UEFI implementation with no network
support instead.
Re: [PATCH 11/35] RFC: efi: Drop code that doesn't work with driver model
On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 10:15:44PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > From: Simon Glass
> > Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 13:57:39 -0600
> >
> > Hi Heinrich,
> >
> > On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 03:26, Heinrich Schuchardt
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 9/9/21 10:57 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > Hi Heinrich,
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 11:44, Heinrich Schuchardt
> > > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On 9/8/21 3:33 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > >>> This code should never have been added as it builds a new feature on
> > > >>> top
> > > >>> of legacy code. Drop it and add a dependency on BLK for this feature.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Boards which want EFI_LOADER should migrate to driver model first.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass
> > > >>
> > > >> This patch is not related to the rest of the series and the code has a
> > > >> different maintainer.
> > > >>
> > > >> So, please, separate it from the series.
> > > >
> > > > Who is the maintainer?
> > >
> > > Until 623b3a57976 ("efi_selftest: provide an EFI selftest application")
> > > there was no official maintainer for lib/efi/ but you were the main
> > > contributor.
> > >
> > > But with that patch directory lib/efi/ was assigned to EFI PAYLOAD.
> > >
> > > I am happy if you would continue to care about U-Boot on EFI.
> >
> > OK.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I need this patch for this series to work. You can still review things
> > > > for other maintainers and in this case it is common for one maintainer
> > > > to pick up the series once the others are happy.
> > >
> > > The direction of this patch is completely correct.
> > >
> > > There are some things that will have to be changed, e.g we should not
> > > require CONFIG_DM_ETH=y. I will work on reviewing this patch in detail.
> >
> > OK, but why not require DM_ETH? The deadline passed a year ago.
>
> Because we support boards without network ports?
Boards without networking should disable the relevant code, and as
needed the EFI code return the proper error code?
--
Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [PATCH 11/35] RFC: efi: Drop code that doesn't work with driver model
> From: Simon Glass
> Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 13:57:39 -0600
>
> Hi Heinrich,
>
> On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 03:26, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 9/9/21 10:57 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > Hi Heinrich,
> > >
> > > On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 11:44, Heinrich Schuchardt
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 9/8/21 3:33 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> > >>> This code should never have been added as it builds a new feature on top
> > >>> of legacy code. Drop it and add a dependency on BLK for this feature.
> > >>>
> > >>> Boards which want EFI_LOADER should migrate to driver model first.
> > >>>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass
> > >>
> > >> This patch is not related to the rest of the series and the code has a
> > >> different maintainer.
> > >>
> > >> So, please, separate it from the series.
> > >
> > > Who is the maintainer?
> >
> > Until 623b3a57976 ("efi_selftest: provide an EFI selftest application")
> > there was no official maintainer for lib/efi/ but you were the main
> > contributor.
> >
> > But with that patch directory lib/efi/ was assigned to EFI PAYLOAD.
> >
> > I am happy if you would continue to care about U-Boot on EFI.
>
> OK.
>
> >
> > >
> > > I need this patch for this series to work. You can still review things
> > > for other maintainers and in this case it is common for one maintainer
> > > to pick up the series once the others are happy.
> >
> > The direction of this patch is completely correct.
> >
> > There are some things that will have to be changed, e.g we should not
> > require CONFIG_DM_ETH=y. I will work on reviewing this patch in detail.
>
> OK, but why not require DM_ETH? The deadline passed a year ago.
Because we support boards without network ports?
Re: [PATCH 11/35] RFC: efi: Drop code that doesn't work with driver model
On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 01:57:39PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Heinrich,
>
> On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 03:26, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 9/9/21 10:57 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > Hi Heinrich,
> > >
> > > On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 11:44, Heinrich Schuchardt
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 9/8/21 3:33 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> > >>> This code should never have been added as it builds a new feature on top
> > >>> of legacy code. Drop it and add a dependency on BLK for this feature.
> > >>>
> > >>> Boards which want EFI_LOADER should migrate to driver model first.
> > >>>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass
> > >>
> > >> This patch is not related to the rest of the series and the code has a
> > >> different maintainer.
> > >>
> > >> So, please, separate it from the series.
> > >
> > > Who is the maintainer?
> >
> > Until 623b3a57976 ("efi_selftest: provide an EFI selftest application")
> > there was no official maintainer for lib/efi/ but you were the main
> > contributor.
> >
> > But with that patch directory lib/efi/ was assigned to EFI PAYLOAD.
> >
> > I am happy if you would continue to care about U-Boot on EFI.
>
> OK.
>
> >
> > >
> > > I need this patch for this series to work. You can still review things
> > > for other maintainers and in this case it is common for one maintainer
> > > to pick up the series once the others are happy.
> >
> > The direction of this patch is completely correct.
> >
> > There are some things that will have to be changed, e.g we should not
> > require CONFIG_DM_ETH=y. I will work on reviewing this patch in detail.
>
> OK, but why not require DM_ETH? The deadline passed a year ago.
Note that it's still a while (about a year) before I forcefully yank out
unmigrated systems.
--
Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [PATCH 11/35] RFC: efi: Drop code that doesn't work with driver model
Hi Heinrich,
On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 03:26, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/9/21 10:57 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Heinrich,
> >
> > On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 11:44, Heinrich Schuchardt
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 9/8/21 3:33 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> >>> This code should never have been added as it builds a new feature on top
> >>> of legacy code. Drop it and add a dependency on BLK for this feature.
> >>>
> >>> Boards which want EFI_LOADER should migrate to driver model first.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass
> >>
> >> This patch is not related to the rest of the series and the code has a
> >> different maintainer.
> >>
> >> So, please, separate it from the series.
> >
> > Who is the maintainer?
>
> Until 623b3a57976 ("efi_selftest: provide an EFI selftest application")
> there was no official maintainer for lib/efi/ but you were the main
> contributor.
>
> But with that patch directory lib/efi/ was assigned to EFI PAYLOAD.
>
> I am happy if you would continue to care about U-Boot on EFI.
OK.
>
> >
> > I need this patch for this series to work. You can still review things
> > for other maintainers and in this case it is common for one maintainer
> > to pick up the series once the others are happy.
>
> The direction of this patch is completely correct.
>
> There are some things that will have to be changed, e.g we should not
> require CONFIG_DM_ETH=y. I will work on reviewing this patch in detail.
OK, but why not require DM_ETH? The deadline passed a year ago.
>
> I already added CONFIG_BLK as a requirement for CONFIG_EFI_LOADER in a
> submitted patch.
OK good.
>
> Removing legacy code from lib/efi_loader/efi_disk.c and
> lib/efi_loader/efi_device_path.c could be done before all U-Boot on EFI
> patches.
>
> Therefore I still think it makes sense to split the series in two:
>
> 1) Cleanup of the UEFI implementation
> 2) Rework of U-Boot on EFI
>
> I hope merging in this sequence of patch series makes send to you.
I am fine if you want to take on the clean-up stuff for BLK, etc. In
that case we can just drop this patch when applying. But I do need
some sort of patch here, for things to work.
Regards,
Simon
Re: [PATCH 11/35] RFC: efi: Drop code that doesn't work with driver model
On 9/9/21 10:57 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Heinrich,
On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 11:44, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
On 9/8/21 3:33 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
This code should never have been added as it builds a new feature on top
of legacy code. Drop it and add a dependency on BLK for this feature.
Boards which want EFI_LOADER should migrate to driver model first.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass
This patch is not related to the rest of the series and the code has a
different maintainer.
So, please, separate it from the series.
Who is the maintainer?
Until 623b3a57976 ("efi_selftest: provide an EFI selftest application")
there was no official maintainer for lib/efi/ but you were the main
contributor.
But with that patch directory lib/efi/ was assigned to EFI PAYLOAD.
I am happy if you would continue to care about U-Boot on EFI.
I need this patch for this series to work. You can still review things
for other maintainers and in this case it is common for one maintainer
to pick up the series once the others are happy.
The direction of this patch is completely correct.
There are some things that will have to be changed, e.g we should not
require CONFIG_DM_ETH=y. I will work on reviewing this patch in detail.
I already added CONFIG_BLK as a requirement for CONFIG_EFI_LOADER in a
submitted patch.
Removing legacy code from lib/efi_loader/efi_disk.c and
lib/efi_loader/efi_device_path.c could be done before all U-Boot on EFI
patches.
Therefore I still think it makes sense to split the series in two:
1) Cleanup of the UEFI implementation
2) Rework of U-Boot on EFI
I hope merging in this sequence of patch series makes send to you.
Best regards
Heinrich
Re: [PATCH 11/35] RFC: efi: Drop code that doesn't work with driver model
Hi Heinrich, On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 11:44, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > > > > On 9/8/21 3:33 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > > This code should never have been added as it builds a new feature on top > > of legacy code. Drop it and add a dependency on BLK for this feature. > > > > Boards which want EFI_LOADER should migrate to driver model first. > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass > > This patch is not related to the rest of the series and the code has a > different maintainer. > > So, please, separate it from the series. Who is the maintainer? I need this patch for this series to work. You can still review things for other maintainers and in this case it is common for one maintainer to pick up the series once the others are happy. Regards, Simon
Re: [PATCH 11/35] RFC: efi: Drop code that doesn't work with driver model
On 9/8/21 3:33 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
This code should never have been added as it builds a new feature on top
of legacy code. Drop it and add a dependency on BLK for this feature.
Boards which want EFI_LOADER should migrate to driver model first.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass
This patch is not related to the rest of the series and the code has a
different maintainer.
So, please, separate it from the series.
Best regards
Heinrich
---
lib/efi_driver/Makefile | 2 +-
lib/efi_loader/Kconfig | 2 +
lib/efi_loader/efi_device_path.c | 96 +++-
lib/efi_loader/efi_disk.c| 48
4 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 124 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/efi_driver/Makefile b/lib/efi_driver/Makefile
index 83baa1c9a49..f2b6c05cc24 100644
--- a/lib/efi_driver/Makefile
+++ b/lib/efi_driver/Makefile
@@ -6,6 +6,6 @@
# object inclusion implicitly depends on it
obj-y += efi_uclass.o
-ifeq ($(CONFIG_BLK)$(CONFIG_PARTITIONS),yy)
+ifeq ($(CONFIG_PARTITIONS),y)
obj-y += efi_block_device.o
endif
diff --git a/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig b/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig
index dacc3b58810..799aa1a7512 100644
--- a/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig
+++ b/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig
@@ -10,6 +10,8 @@ config EFI_LOADER
depends on !EFI_STUB || !X86_64 || EFI_STUB_64BIT
# We need EFI_STUB_32BIT to be set on x86_32 with EFI_STUB
depends on !EFI_STUB || !X86 || X86_64 || EFI_STUB_32BIT
+ depends on BLK
+ depends on DM_ETH || !NET
default y if !ARM || SYS_CPU = armv7 || SYS_CPU = armv8
select LIB_UUID
select PARTITION_UUIDS
diff --git a/lib/efi_loader/efi_device_path.c b/lib/efi_loader/efi_device_path.c
index cbdb466da41..a09090a32e4 100644
--- a/lib/efi_loader/efi_device_path.c
+++ b/lib/efi_loader/efi_device_path.c
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ static const struct efi_device_path_vendor ROOT = {
.guid = U_BOOT_GUID,
};
-#if defined(CONFIG_DM_MMC) && defined(CONFIG_MMC)
+#if defined(CONFIG_MMC)
/*
* Determine if an MMC device is an SD card.
*
@@ -486,7 +486,6 @@ bool efi_dp_is_multi_instance(const struct efi_device_path
*dp)
return p->sub_type == DEVICE_PATH_SUB_TYPE_INSTANCE_END;
}
-#ifdef CONFIG_DM
/* size of device-path not including END node for device and all parents
* up to the root device.
*/
@@ -503,7 +502,6 @@ __maybe_unused static unsigned int dp_size(struct udevice
*dev)
case UCLASS_ETH:
return dp_size(dev->parent) +
sizeof(struct efi_device_path_mac_addr);
-#ifdef CONFIG_BLK
case UCLASS_BLK:
switch (dev->parent->uclass->uc_drv->id) {
#ifdef CONFIG_IDE
@@ -511,12 +509,12 @@ __maybe_unused static unsigned int dp_size(struct udevice
*dev)
return dp_size(dev->parent) +
sizeof(struct efi_device_path_atapi);
#endif
-#if defined(CONFIG_SCSI) && defined(CONFIG_DM_SCSI)
+#if defined(CONFIG_SCSI)
case UCLASS_SCSI:
return dp_size(dev->parent) +
sizeof(struct efi_device_path_scsi);
#endif
-#if defined(CONFIG_DM_MMC) && defined(CONFIG_MMC)
+#if defined(CONFIG_MMC)
case UCLASS_MMC:
return dp_size(dev->parent) +
sizeof(struct efi_device_path_sd_mmc_path);
@@ -554,8 +552,7 @@ __maybe_unused static unsigned int dp_size(struct udevice
*dev)
default:
return dp_size(dev->parent);
}
-#endif
-#if defined(CONFIG_DM_MMC) && defined(CONFIG_MMC)
+#if defined(CONFIG_MMC)
case UCLASS_MMC:
return dp_size(dev->parent) +
sizeof(struct efi_device_path_sd_mmc_path);
@@ -590,7 +587,7 @@ __maybe_unused static void *dp_fill(void *buf, struct
udevice *dev)
*vdp = ROOT;
return [1];
}
-#ifdef CONFIG_DM_ETH
+#ifdef CONFIG_NET
case UCLASS_ETH: {
struct efi_device_path_mac_addr *dp =
dp_fill(buf, dev->parent);
@@ -607,7 +604,6 @@ __maybe_unused static void *dp_fill(void *buf, struct
udevice *dev)
return [1];
}
#endif
-#ifdef CONFIG_BLK
case UCLASS_BLK:
switch (dev->parent->uclass->uc_drv->id) {
#ifdef CONFIG_SANDBOX
@@ -662,7 +658,7 @@ __maybe_unused static void *dp_fill(void *buf, struct
udevice *dev)
return [1];
}
#endif
-#if defined(CONFIG_SCSI) && defined(CONFIG_DM_SCSI)
+#if defined(CONFIG_SCSI)
case UCLASS_SCSI: {
struct efi_device_path_scsi *dp =
dp_fill(buf, dev->parent);
@@ -676,7 +672,7 @@ __maybe_unused static void *dp_fill(void *buf, struct
udevice *dev)
return [1];
}
#endif
-#if defined(CONFIG_DM_MMC) &&
