[PATCH v3 00/19] efi_loader: more tightly integrate UEFI disks to driver model

[Tom Rini]

On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 07:32:59PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
>  Hi Tom,
> 
> On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 at 17:13, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 02:20:15PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > Hi Soeren,
> > >
> > > On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 at 12:15, Soeren Moch <smoch at web.de> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 08.03.22 17:56, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 at 09:49, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk at gmx.de> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On 3/8/22 12:36, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> > > > >>> With this patch set[1] applied, UEFI subsystem maintains a list of its
> > > > >>> disk objects dynamically at runtime based on block device's probing.
> > > > >>> (See "issues" below.)
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> [1]https://github.com/t-akashi/u-boot/tree/efi/dm_disk
> > > > >>
> > > > >> This series together with Simon's series breaks multiple boards due to
> > > > >> size constraints:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> https://source.denx.de/u-boot/custodians/u-boot-efi/-/pipelines/11197
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Please, investigate how to work around this issue.
> > > > >
> > > > > tbs2910 - perhaps we should just drop this board? It doesn't use
> > > > > DM_SERIAL and still uses OF_EMBED
> > > >
> > > > Are we again at the same point? You are breaking working boards with
> > > > (for these boards) useless additions, and all you come up with is
> > > > "remove this board". Of course without adding the board maintainer.
> > >
> > > I'm just expressing reasonable frustration that this board uses
> > > OF_EMBED and does not use DM_SERIAL, after all of this time. Why
> > > should the rest of the U-Boot developers care more about this board
> > > than the maintainer?
> >
> > Please keep in mind Simon that we've had zero releases with the
> > DM_SERIAL migration warning being posted, v2022.04 will be the first
> > one.
> 
> Yes, understood :-) For OF_EMBED though...?

No deadline and 50 boards.

> It was actually quite hard to add a migration message until we added
> the CONFIG_SERIAL base thing and that was a pain to do.
> 
> For those of us who take on larger refactors etc., we end up spending
> a lot of our time on these few platforms. I'm not picking on tbs2910in
> in particular.

Well, the flip side of the problem here is that there's a number of
platforms with real constraints to them and it keeps being "can we drop
this yet?" without CC'ing the board maintainer on the series that once
again pushes a given platform to the limit.  I would expect no size
growth to tbs2910 for the topic of this series since it disables
EFI_LOADER entirely, so why is it a problem?

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 659 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20220308/db08e8b2/attachment.sig>