[PATCH v4 5/8] sunxi: Move to bootstd

[Peter Robinson]

On Sun, 3 Nov 2024 at 19:06, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> On Sun, 3 Nov 2024 at 09:15, Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis at xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> > > Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2024 07:46:44 -0700
> >
> > Hi Simon,
> >
> > > Hi Andre,
> > >
> > > On Sun, 3 Nov 2024 at 03:36, Andre Przywara <andre.przywara at arm.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 2 Nov 2024 11:35:31 -0600
> > > > Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Simon,
> > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 at 17:25, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Drop support for distroboot and move to using bootstd instead.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (no changes since v2)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Changes in v2:
> > > > > > - Convert the other DISTRO_DEFAULTS in the Kconfig too
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  arch/arm/Kconfig | 10 +++++-----
> > > > > >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Could this series be applied, please?
> > > >
> > > > So I played with that a bit:
> > > > - The FEL script boot method works: it has the highest priority, which
> > > >   is what we want, because the script would be deliberately injected by
> > > >   the user to be executed. So thanks for the changes!
> > > > - However the other global boot method (efimgr) takes precedence over
> > > >   other, *higher* priority methods (extlinux.conf/boot.scr). This
> > > >   leads to behavioural regressions, I think, like:
> > > >   - Say there is a bootaa64.efi on some ESP on the eMMC. If you now
> > > >     boot from SD card, with boot.scr or extlinux.conf on there, U-Boot
> > > >     will still find the EFI app first and execute that. I don't think
> > > >     that's what we want?
> > > >   - Similar, if you have a boot script on the eMMC, and boot from
> > > >     there, but with a USB stick carrying a bootaa64.efi plugged in.
> > > >     Then EFI would win as well. This might be intended, but maybe not,
> > > >     and I don't see how one would influence that?
> > > >
> > > > Is there a way to change the bootflow to look for any boot payload on
> > > > the *boot* media first? So when I boot from SD, it checks this first for
> > > > EFI, boot.scr, extlinux.conf, then goes to eMMC and USB. Similarly, when
> > > > booting from eMMC, check there first before considering SD and USB.
> > > > Maybe I am missing something obvious here?
> > > >
> > > > So while I am personally happy with EFI being a prominent citizen, I
> > > > think many sunxi users would still expect more traditional boot methods
> > > > to at least work - at the moment they might be permanently "shadowed" by
> > > > some bootaa64.efi sitting *somewhere*. That actually bites me at the
> > > > moment when working on a new SoC port, where I use an extlinux.conf as
> > > > an override, to load a custom dev kernel and DTB, but bootstd still
> > > > finds that grub on that SD card and uses that first :-(
> > > >
> > > > So I feel like EFI should still be the preferred boot method, but the
> > > > more custom ways should be allowed to override that.
> > > >
> > > > Do you have any ideas how to solve that, or am I holding it wrong?
> > >
> > > Given that we are past rc1 the easiest thing might be to revert this:
> > >
> > > f2bfa0cb179 bootstd: Make efi_mgr bootmeth work for non-sandbox setups
> > >
> > > until we can figure this out.
> > >
> > > Can you try that?
> >
> > That will break setups that use the EFI bootmanager on platforms
> > already converted to bootstd (such as various Rockchip boards and the
> > Apple machines).  I don't think that is acceptable as we've been
> > shipping releases with working EFI bootmanager support on those
> > platforms for several years already.
>
> This patch only went in in 2024.01 so I'm not sure how you have been
> shipping releases for several years. Are you sure those devices won't
> boot without bootmgr?
>
> This issue will presumably block all bootstd migration if we don't
> find a solution, meaning that over 1000 boards will be stuck with the
> scripts, etc.

I think we can be a little less melodramatic, I mean after all that's
what they've been using up until now.