[PATCH v2 1/1] efi_loader: expose the device-tree file name

Mark Kettenis mark.kettenis at xs4all.nl
Tue Nov 14 20:09:52 CET 2023


> From: Simon Glass <sjg at google.com>
> Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2023 13:17:18 -0600
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 at 11:06, Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis at xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >
> > > Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 12:34:55 -0400
> > > From: Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com>
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 05:37:34PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > > > From: Simon Glass <sjg at google.com>
> > > > > Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 00:08:40 -0700
> > > > >
> > > > > > > fdt_node_check_compatible() does most of the work...then you need to
> > > > > > > check which FDT has the most specific match (i.e. latest in the string
> > > > > > > list). That handles things like board revisions, variants, etc.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My concern is about adding a feature when there is already a defined
> > > > > > > spec and mechanism for this to work. What happens when we load the
> > > > > > > file and the compatible is wrong?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > At best, I see the filename as a hint.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [Perhaps this is the wrong time to ask, but why are kernels +DT not
> > > > > > > shipped in FIT on ARM?]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > FIT is U-Boot specific. For Linux distributions it is easier to use a
> > > > > > firmware agnostic method of booting.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd like to suggest that distros use both. Then U-Boot can work as it
> > > > > was designed and we can avoid these work-arounds.
> > > > >
> > > > > FIT is actually implemented in various other bootloaders. In fact
> > > > > perhaps grub is the only one that doesn't? I can't think of any
> > > > > others.
> > > >
> > > > Simon, please stop pushing this.  OpenBSD's bootloader does not
> > > > support FIT and we have no interest in supporting it.  Our users
> > > > expect to be able to just copy a new kernel in place and use it and
> > > > our OS upgrade procedure depends on this as well.  And this is
> > > > incompatble with FIT.  I've explained this about a dozen times to you
> > > > now.
> > >
> > > In the context of this thread, genuinely, how will OpenBSD (and the rest
> > > of the BSD families) operate? I agree U-Boot doesn't want to have to
> > > know all of the UFSes, so that means the SCT will be populated either by
> > > the DT passed to U-Boot, or the DT we were built with. Is it that since
> > > the next stage is an EFI app, it will check that variable and use that
> > > hint?
> >
> > Yes, that is exactly what I want to do.  Hopefully the DT that is
> > passed to U-Boot or that U-Boot was built with will be good enough in
> > most cases.  But when it isn't users can use the OpenBSD bootloader
> > (which is an EFI app) to load an updated DT.
> >
> > I can't speak for the other BSDs, but I think both FreeBSD and NetBSD
> > have a very similar boot mechanism.
> 
> I've been thinking about this patch a bit more, and I have grave misgivings.
> 
> I predict that if we take this, it will become an ABI from U-Boot and
> we will not be able to drop it.

Why would we want to drop it?

> Here is what I suggest instead: provide a protocol for U-Boot to
> provide the DT over EFI. Provide any information needed by U-Boot,
> such as the directory containing the files.

So you want something more complicated than a simple EFI variable?  Why?

> We already have the ability to put a DT in the system table. We
> already have a way to package DT into a FIT and allow U-Boot to select
> the correct one.

Please stop pushing FIT for use cases where it doesn't make sense.

> With something like this it will be impossible for U-Boot to boot a
> distro without using grub, etc. since it won't know what DT to use.
> This information would be held in a script somewhere which no one can
> figure out without executing it.

Huh?  U-Boot already knows the name of name of the DT filename.  It is
what we currently use in the distroboot scripts.  You are free to use
a U-Boot specific bootflow based on that if you really want to.  But
many distros (or other OSes like OpenBSD) really don't want to
maintain support for multiple boot flows.


More information about the U-Boot mailing list