Hi Quentin,
On 3 January 2018 at 02:18, Quentin Schulz quentin.schulz@free-electrons.com wrote:
Hi Simon,
On 29/12/2017 04:13, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Quentin,
On 22 December 2017 at 14:13, Quentin Schulz quentin.schulz@free-electrons.com wrote:
This patch series is based on this[1] patch series from Maxime.
This is an RFC. It's been only tested in a specific use case on a custom i.MX6 board. It's known to break compilation on a few boards.
I have a use case where we want some variables from a first environment to be overriden by variables from a second environment. For example, we want to load variables from the default env (ENV_IS_NOWHERE) and then load only a handful of other variables from, e.g., NAND.
In our use case, we basically can be sure that the default env in the U-Boot binary is secure but we want only a few variables to be modified, thus keeping control over the overall behaviour of U-Boot in secure mode.
It works in that way:
- from highest to lowest priority, the first environment that can be
loaded (that has successfully init and whose load function has returned no errors) will be the main environment,
- then, all the following environment that could be successfully loaded
(same conditions as the main environment) are secondary environment. The env variables that are defined both in CONFIG_ENV_VAR_WHITELIST_LIST and in the secondary environments override the ones in the main environment,
- for saving, we save the whole environment to all environments
available, be they main or secondary (it does not matter to save the whole environment on secondary environments as only the whitelisted variables will be overriden in the loading process,
I have also a few questions that could help me to get the whole thing to work.
- I can't really get my head around the use of gd->env_addr, what is it used
for? It is set in a bunch of different places but only once is it explicitly used (basically to alternate the env_addr between the one associated to main and redundant environment (in NAND for example)).
- Why do we consider ENV_IS_NOWHERE an invalid environment? The only place I
found a use for it was to just say that if the environment is invalid, we should set to default environment (in env_relocate in env/common.c). With my patch series I guess that we could remove this fallback and force ENV_IS_NOWHERE to be always there.
- There are a few (20) boards that set gd->env_addr and gd->env_valid in
their board file. What is the reason to do such a thing? Isn't those overriden anyway by the environment driver?
I'm looking forward to getting your feedback on this patch series.
I certainly understand the goal and it seems generally useful.
But I wonder whether this is the best way to implement it.
We could have a UCLASS_ENV uclass, with driver-model drivers which load the environment (i.e. have load() and save() methods). Config for the drivers would come from the device tree. Useful drivers would be:
I'm not sure the device tree is the place to set/get such info. That has nothing to do with hardware, it's only logic for the bootloader.
- one that loads the env from a single location
- one that loads multiple envs from different locations in priority order
- one that does what you want
Then people could set their own policy by adding a driver.
I'll have to document myself on driver-model and how U-Boot implement it then :)
I worry that what we have here is quite heavyweight, and will be imposed on all users, e.g. the size increase of gd, the new logic. Where does it end? I think splitting things up into different use cases makes sense.
Agree on that.
When I did the env refactor I envisaged using driver-model for the post-reloc env load/save at some point in the future. It solves the problem of getting the config (can use device tree) and different boards wanting to do different things (boards can provide an env driver).
Overall, I prefer Lukasz's suggestion as it's quicker and easier to implement and require (I think) less changes in the code.
Do you mean selecting from different locations? Yes that is a good thing, but is orthogonal to this series.
Here you are trying to add functionality which will apply to any env location, or to them as a whole. So we should think of your change as implementing a new policy rather than a new env location.
Regards, Simon