Hi Heinrich, On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 at 14:17, Heinrich Schuchardt <heinrich.schucha...@canonical.com> wrote: > > On 10/11/22 16:16, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Heinrich, > > > > On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 at 04:38, Heinrich Schuchardt > > <heinrich.schucha...@canonical.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 10/11/22 07:46, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> 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. > > > > If blk is the MMC block device, the fact that is mmc 0 is determined > > by dev_seq(dev_get_parent(blk)). We are not parsing strings to find > > that out. It is part of the design. > > > >>> > >>>> > >>>> 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. > > > > See below. > > > >> > >> You already noted when writing conv_uclass_id() that using the uclass > >> name does not work properly to find out the CLI name of a devie. > >> > >> Can we put the CLI name for device types ("mmc", "scsi" ...) into struct > >> blk_ops? Then we have a clear separation of the block device from the > >> parent device. > > > > There really isn't any separation in driver model...the parent device > > does determine the type of the block device. It creates the block > > device, using its own uclass. See for example mmc-uclass.c in > > mmc_bind(): > > > > ret = blk_create_devicef(dev, "mmc_blk", "blk", UCLASS_MMC, > > dev_seq(dev), 512, 0, &bdev); > > > > The following fields in blk_desc will be dropped at some point: > > > > - uclass_id since it is the same as the parent* > > - bdev (point to block device) since we will stop passing around > > blk_desc and will use the block device instead > > - devnum since it is the save as dev_seq(blk) > > > > * Except for the USB weirdness in conv_uclass_id() which we need to fix > > > > Why do you want this 'separation'? Is this another strange EFI thing > > due to it not using driver model properly? > > > > Also you have not yet replied to my point about needing to create a > > parent 'media' device for every block device. That is also part of the > > design. Have you done that for EFI, or is your reluctance to do that > > behind continued discussions and misalignments on UCLASS_BLK ? > > If I look at physical devices for MMC I might find: > > SoC -> PCI root -> MMC controller -> SD card > > What you call MMC parent device is the MMC controller. > > This is also what can easily modeled as a device path in EFI.
OK good. That covers all devices in U-Boot present, I believe. > > In the case of an iSCSI drive provided by iPXE U-boot would provide a > network device which currently has a device path VenHW(root)/MAC(). > > iPXE creates a virtual network card VenHW(root)/MAC()/MAC() consuming > the services of the physical one. > > Next it creates a virtual device VenHW(root)/MAC()/MAC()/IPv6() which > exposes the block IO protocol for reading the iSCSI drive. > > The parent for the block device in the EFI world is a network interface. > But the block operations are provided by the block IO protocol which is > provided by the virtual device that iPXE has created and not by a > network interface. So the parent is irrelevant here. Then the virtual device should be the parent? Are we trying to skip one level of hierarchy? > > Sure you could create a single root2 device as parent for all efi_loader > devices like you have root for the host devices. But such a device would > have no functionality at all except carrying a dummy Uclass to store the > CLI string "efiblk" for all of its children. I don't think it should be a root2 device. It should really be a child of the network device, so far as I understand what you have written above. > > Why can't we have the CLI string for the device type in the driver's > struct blk_ops? It isn't just about the CLI string. It's also about having a sensible device hierarchy with 'dm tree', being able to put things in the device tree in a sensible way, etc. This feels like a symptom of the lack of alignment between EFI and driver model. +Ilias Apalodimas please do see if you can help here. Regards, Simon