Hi Rob, On 3 August 2017 at 13:36, Rob Clark <robdcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 3:10 PM, Brüns, Stefan > <stefan.bru...@rwth-aachen.de> wrote: >> On Donnerstag, 3. August 2017 18:54:30 CEST Rob Clark wrote: >>> Needed to support efi file protocol. The fallback.efi loader wants >>> to be able to read the contents of the /EFI directory to find an OS >>> to boot. >>> >>> Currently only implemented for FAT, but that is all that UEFI is >>> required to support. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdcl...@gmail.com> >>> --- >>> fs/fat/fat.c | 59 >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------- fs/fs.c | >>> 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> include/fat.h | 4 +++- >>> include/fs.h | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 4 files changed, 95 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) >>> >> >> NAK >> >> 1. The current code is already much to convoluted. Your changes add to this >> significantly > > I agree with the first part of that statement, but not the second. > The code is pretty awful, but apparently works for people, and I don't > know (or have the time to learn) enough about FAT to do a massive > re-write. > > I'll split this patch so we can add the interface without FAT > implementation, and I'll just carry around the second part downstream. > >> 2. Your patch description neither references the exact part of the EFI >> specification you want to support (which took me some time, for reference it >> is "13.: Protocols - Media Access, 13.5: File Protocol"), nor are you >> specifying the required semantics (which is "open", "read", "close", where >> each read returns a single directory entry, similar to the POSIX opendir(), >> readdir() calls. > > I can add a note in the commit message.. although I didn't really > think it would be too relevant to this patch. (More relevant to the > patch which adds the efi_loader part, which depends on this patch.) > >> 3. Usage of an index too lookup the next entry is also quite convoluted. >> >> 4. As far as I can see, your code will fail to find files in the root >> directory (look for LS_ROOT). > > You could be right.. nothing ever traverses the root directory. > >> I think it would be much better to first restructure the current code to use >> an readdir like interface internally, and then do everything EFI needs on >> top. > > tbh, it would be nice even to implement fs_ls() generically on top of > readdir().. although I didn't do that since it would be slower > (without a re-write of FAT implementation, since we currently have to > re-traverse things for each readdir()). > > BR, > -R > >> This would get rid of the 4 almost identical copies to print the current >> directory entry (dols == LS_ROOT || dols == LS_YES), 2 copies of the >> remaining >> directory traversal and and also avoid the bug in (4.). >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Stefan
How can we get some tests for this code? We have fs-tests.sh - perhaps we should build on that? If it helps I could bring that into the pytest framework and you could take it from there? With tests we at least have the possibility of refactoring later. Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
