Am 19.04.2017 um 23:34 schrieb Simon Glass:
On 19 April 2017 at 15:06, Andreas Färber afaerber@suse.de wrote:
Am 19.04.2017 um 13:26 schrieb Heinrich Schuchardt:
When iterating over the devices of an uclass the iteration stops at the first device that cannot be probed. When calling booefi this will result in no block device being
"bootefi"
passed to the EFI executable if the first device cannot be probed.
The problem was reported by Andreas Färber in https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2017-April/287432.html
For testing I used an odroid-c2 with a dts including &sd_emmc_a { status = "okay"; } This device does not exist on the board and cannot be initialized.
With the patch uclass_first_device and uclass_next_device iterate internally until they find the first device that can be probed or the end of the device list is reached.
Debug output is provided for the two functions.
Reported-by: Andreas Färber afaerber@suse.de Cc: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt xypron.glpk@gmx.de
v2: As suggested by Simon Glass correct uclass_first_device() and uclass_next_device() instead of uclass_get_device_tail() to avoid side effects. v1: The original patch was posted as core/uclass: uclass_get_device_tail: always set devp https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2017-April/288068.html
drivers/core/uclass.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
Reviewed-by: Andreas Färber afaerber@suse.de Tested-by: Andreas Färber afaerber@suse.de
Confirming that on my Vega S95 Telos this results in a full GRUB menu, and GRUB sees two disks.
Many thanks,
Andreas
Just to be clear, I am NAKing this patch. I do not want to change the existing semantics as it requires existing code to check the function return value.
And to be clear I still think you are mistaken in holding on to an implementation that assumes that all devices will probe okay. We might be able to fix the issue at hand in different ways - be it at the callsite or by adding a new API - but this is papering over other potential problems in the codebase. Hardware might malfunction, drivers might not be implemented in U-Boot or be disabled by user's config, etc.
The caller might notice that some error has occurred by checking the return code, but what do you seriously expect it to do then? If it's supposed to call an alternative iteration function to continue, it could just call that in the first place.
Regards, Andreas