[PATCH] efi_loader: remove EFI_BOUNCE_BUFFER

[Tom Rini]

On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 02:26:39PM +0200, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 at 13:34, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ilias,
> >
> > On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 at 15:19, Ilias Apalodimas
> > <ilias.apalodimas at linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Simon
> > >
> > > On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 at 15:33, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Ilias,
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 at 02:37, Ilias Apalodimas
> > > > <ilias.apalodimas at linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Heinrich,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 at 19:50, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk at gmx.de> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 17.03.25 14:38, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > %s/EFI_BOUNCE_BUFFER/CONFIG_EFI_LOADER_BOUNCE_BUFFER/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The EFI subsystem defines its own bounce buffer for devices that
> > > > > > > can't transfer data > 4GB. U-Boot already has a generic BOUNCE_BUFFER
> > > > > > > which can be reused instead of defining another symbol.
> > > > > > > The only limitation for EFI is that we don't know how big the file a user
> > > > > > > chooses to transfer is and as a result we can't depend on allocating the
> > > > > > > memory from the malloc area, which can prove too small.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So allocate an EFI buffer of the correct size and pass it to the DM,
> > > > > > > which already supports bounce buffering via bounce_buffer_start_extalign()
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Looking at
> > > > > >
> > > > > >      if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BOUNCE_BUFFER) && desc->bb) {
> > > > > >
> > > > > > in drivers/block/blk-uclass.c the bounce buffer has to be explicitly
> > > > > > enabled by the device driver. Only the scsi drivers sets bb = true.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cf. 81bd22e935dc ("rockchip: block: blk-uclass: add bounce buffer flag
> > > > > > to blk_desc")
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Which device-drivers of the boards mentioned below do actually need
> > > > > > bounce buffering?
> > > > >
> > > > > Unfortunately, I don't have any of the hardware to test and I havent
> > > > > worked with that platform much.
> > > > > That 'bb' variable and the fact that EFI needs bigger allocations is
> > > > > why I ended up allocationg properly aligned memory from the EFI
> > > > > subsystem. But as Mark pointed out, the cache flush is a no go for
> > > > > now, so I'll drop this and see if I find time to rework the bounce
> > > > > buffer logic overall
> > > >
> > > > There was quite a bit of discussion about all this in the context of
> > > > my attempt to just add a message to warn the user[1]
> > > >
> > > > We might consider adding an event to reserve memory before relocation,
> > > > along with a way to discover (in board_r) where the memory was
> > > > allocated. That would make the solution more generic.
> > >
> > > I am not sure what you are trying to solve here. The EFI bounce buffer
> > > after the LMB patches can't overwrite memory, nor can it be
> > > overwritten.
> >
> > I am thinking of we can create a single implementation of the
> > bouncebuf logic which also works for EFI.
> >
> > I think the two sane things to do are:
> > - restrict U-Boot to using memory below 4GB for platforms which have
> > the DMA limitation
> 
> You don't need that. The bounce buf code has a callback you can use to
> define the limitations
> 
> > - create (in board_f) a special region below 4GB for use with the
> > bouncebuf logic
> 
> The only problem with EFI is that you don't know how much memory it
> needs and we can't use the existing memalign calls. So if we replace
> that memalign in the bounce buffer code, with an lmb reservation we
> have everything we need.

It's not even an EFI problem is it? You could hit the same problem
reading a file from a filesystem outside of EFI too. These specific
SoCs just aren't heavily exercised is one of the challenges I think and
so it's possible that we have a few things to yet improve in the
bounce buffer code (which was added for other SoCs and done as generic
enough starting point for others).

-- 
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/20250328/23872df1/attachment-0001.sig>