[RFC 01/13] cmd: bootefi: unfold do_bootefi_image()

[Ilias Apalodimas]

Akashi-san

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 at 04:00, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 09:25:44AM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 01:01:52PM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> > > On 10/26/23 07:30, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> > > > Unfold do_bootefi_image() into do_bootefi() for the sake of the succeeding
> > > > refactor work.
> > > >

I don't disagree with the patchset, but what the patch does is pretty
obvious.  It would help a lot to briefly describe how the unfolding
process helps the refactoring.

Thanks
/Ilias
> > > > Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi at linaro.org>
> > > > ---
> > > >   cmd/bootefi.c | 101 ++++++++++++++++++--------------------------------
> > > >   1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 64 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/cmd/bootefi.c b/cmd/bootefi.c
> > > > index 20e5c94a33a4..1b28bf5a318d 100644
> > > > --- a/cmd/bootefi.c
> > > > +++ b/cmd/bootefi.c
> > > > @@ -425,58 +425,6 @@ static int do_efibootmgr(void)
> > > >           return CMD_RET_SUCCESS;
> > > >   }
> > > >
> > > > -/**
> > > > - * do_bootefi_image() - execute EFI binary
> > > > - *
> > > > - * Set up memory image for the binary to be loaded, prepare device path, and
> > > > - * then call do_bootefi_exec() to execute it.
> > > > - *
> > > > - * @image_opt:   string with image start address
> > > > - * @size_opt:    string with image size or NULL
> > > > - * Return:       status code
> > > > - */
> > > > -static int do_bootefi_image(const char *image_opt, const char *size_opt)
> > > > -{
> > > > - void *image_buf;
> > > > - unsigned long addr, size;
> > > > - efi_status_t ret;
> > > > -
> > > > -#ifdef CONFIG_CMD_BOOTEFI_HELLO
> > > > - if (!strcmp(image_opt, "hello")) {
> > > > -         image_buf = __efi_helloworld_begin;
> > > > -         size = __efi_helloworld_end - __efi_helloworld_begin;
> > > > -         efi_clear_bootdev();
> > > > - } else
> > > > -#endif
> > > > - {
> > > > -         addr = strtoul(image_opt, NULL, 16);
> > > > -         /* Check that a numeric value was passed */
> > > > -         if (!addr)
> > > > -                 return CMD_RET_USAGE;
> > > > -         image_buf = map_sysmem(addr, 0);
> > > > -
> > > > -         if (size_opt) {
> > > > -                 size = strtoul(size_opt, NULL, 16);
> > > > -                 if (!size)
> > > > -                         return CMD_RET_USAGE;
> > > > -                 efi_clear_bootdev();
> > > > -         } else {
> > > > -                 if (image_buf != image_addr) {
> > > > -                         log_err("No UEFI binary known at %s\n",
> > > > -                                 image_opt);
> > > > -                         return CMD_RET_FAILURE;
> > > > -                 }
> > > > -                 size = image_size;
> > > > -         }
> > > > - }
> > > > - ret = efi_run_image(image_buf, size);
> > > > -
> > > > - if (ret != EFI_SUCCESS)
> > > > -         return CMD_RET_FAILURE;
> > > > -
> > > > - return CMD_RET_SUCCESS;
> > > > -}
> > > > -
> > > >   /**
> > > >    * efi_run_image() - run loaded UEFI image
> > > >    *
> > > > @@ -648,8 +596,9 @@ static int do_bootefi(struct cmd_tbl *cmdtp, int flag, int argc,
> > > >                         char *const argv[])
> > > >   {
> > > >           efi_status_t ret;
> > > > - char *img_addr, *img_size, *str_copy, *pos;
> > > > - void *fdt;
> > > > + char *p;
> > > > + void *fdt, *image_buf;
> > > > + unsigned long addr, size;
> > > >
> > > >           if (argc < 2)
> > > >                   return CMD_RET_USAGE;
> > > > @@ -684,18 +633,42 @@ static int do_bootefi(struct cmd_tbl *cmdtp, int flag, int argc,
> > > >           if (!strcmp(argv[1], "selftest"))
> > > >                   return do_efi_selftest();
> > > >   #endif
> > > > - str_copy = strdup(argv[1]);
> > > > - if (!str_copy) {
> > > > -         log_err("Out of memory\n");
> > > > -         return CMD_RET_FAILURE;
> > > > +
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_CMD_BOOTEFI_HELLO
> > >
> > > I would prefer a normal if and let the linker sort it out.
> >
> > Here I focused on simply unfolding("moving") the function, keeping the code
> > as same as possible. Any how the code is in a tentative form
> > at this point and will be reshaped in later patches, using IS_ENABLED().
> > Please look at the final code after applying the whole series.
>
> I also agree with this approach.
>
> --
> Tom