On 01/18/2018 07:13 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 18.01.18 17:18, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
On 01/18/2018 05:09 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 17.01.18 20:16, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
U-Boot devices and EFI handles can be related, e.g. an IDE disk relates to a handle with the EFI_BLOCK_IO_PROTOCOL. Provide pointers to store these links.
Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt xypron.glpk@gmx.de
v2 no change
include/dm/device.h | 4 ++++ include/efi_loader.h | 2 ++ lib/efi_loader/efi_boottime.c | 1 + 3 files changed, 7 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/dm/device.h b/include/dm/device.h index 813e49f330..e5c54fe7b6 100644 --- a/include/dm/device.h +++ b/include/dm/device.h @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ #ifndef _DM_DEVICE_H #define _DM_DEVICE_H
+#include <efi_loader.h> #include <dm/ofnode.h> #include <dm/uclass-id.h> #include <fdtdec.h> @@ -144,6 +145,9 @@ struct udevice { uint32_t flags; int req_seq; int seq; +#ifdef EFI_LOADER
- efi_handle_t handle;
+#endif
I fail to find where you actually make use of the handle inside
Care to answer here too? :)
The changes in include/dm/device.h are not needed. I will revert these.
Maybe in future we will have to back link devices to handles but not now.
Regards
Heinrich
#ifdef CONFIG_DEVRES struct list_head devres_head; #endif diff --git a/include/efi_loader.h b/include/efi_loader.h index 4060348695..711c901eda 100644 --- a/include/efi_loader.h +++ b/include/efi_loader.h @@ -139,6 +139,8 @@ struct efi_object { struct list_head protocols; /* The object spawner can either use this for data or as identifier */ void *handle;
- /* Device */
- struct udevice *dev;
};
/** diff --git a/lib/efi_loader/efi_boottime.c b/lib/efi_loader/efi_boottime.c index 5a3349ecb2..4b3b63e39a 100644 --- a/lib/efi_loader/efi_boottime.c +++ b/lib/efi_loader/efi_boottime.c @@ -362,6 +362,7 @@ efi_status_t efi_create_handle(efi_handle_t *handle) (void **)&obj); if (r != EFI_SUCCESS) return r;
- obj->dev = NULL;
How about we just zero initialize the whole struct?
All other fields are initialized in efi_add_handle(). So why invest more CPU cycles?
I'm mostly concerned that we get into a situation where people don't fully grasp the flow of what gets initialized where and nasty bugs happen.
So I guess we should either initialize obj->dev in efi_add_handle() or fully zero initialize obj, like we do for most other callers of efi_add_handle().
Alex