On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 08:17:50PM +0200, François Ozog wrote:
Hi Tom,
Le jeu. 28 oct. 2021 à 19:59, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com a écrit :
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 06:50:02PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 6:47 PM Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 06:37:42PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 3:11 PM Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org
wrote:
Hi Heinrich,
On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 at 05:38, Heinrich Schuchardt heinrich.schuchardt@canonical.com wrote: > > > > On 10/24/21 01:25, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > The bootflow feature provide a built-in way for U-Boot to
automatically
> > boot an Operating System without custom scripting and other
customisation.
> > This is called 'standard boot' since it provides a standard
way for
> > U-Boot to boot a distro, without scripting. > > > > It introduces the following concepts: > > > > - bootdev - a device which can hold a distro > > - bootmeth - a method to scan a bootdev to find bootflows
(owned by
> > U-Boot) > > - bootflow - a description of how to boot (owned by the
distro)
> > Please, describe why you are suggesting this change. > > Replacing a script by a devicetree chunk is just decreasing
flexibility
> and increasing complexity. Where is the benefit? > > I am missing a description here of where and how a boot flow
shall be
> defined. Describing some device-tree binding in patch 40/41 does
not
> replace describing the development and usage workflow. Who will
provide
> which bootflow information when? > > You still have an open discussion with Linaro about the source of > devicetrees. This discussion needs to be finalized before
considering
> this series. > > In my view bootflows cannot be defined in the devicetree because
prior
> firmware providing a devicetree is completely independent of any
distro
> and therefore cannot provide a distro specific bootflow.
There is actually no need to use devicetree here. I think you might have the wrong end of the stick. It is certainly possible to add
nodes
to configure things, if needed, but it works find without any
changes
to the devicetree, as you can see from the rpi_3 patch.
There are several aims with this effort:
- Provide a standard way to boot anything on U-Boot, that everyone
can
plug into (distros, board vendors, people using a custom flow)
I as a distro maintainer don't want this, we already get the
"standard
way to boot" from UEFI, this just feels like another unnecessary abstraction to that.
Right. But part of the problem is "How do I find UEFI". Something somewhere needs to be configurable to say where to look, yes?
Is this question from the board PoV, the developer of U-Boot or the distro trying to boot?
If you mean from a boot flow PoV for UEFI to find the HW that contains the OS to boot I thought that was handled elsewhere in the series.
What I mean is that today looking at Pi we have: #define BOOT_TARGET_DEVICES(func) \ BOOT_TARGET_MMC(func) \ BOOT_TARGET_USB(func) \ BOOT_TARGET_PXE(func) \ BOOT_TARGET_DHCP(func)
As the board maintainer set that as the list of places to start looking for the next payload (say the GRUB EFI binary). Simon's series replaces that with I think he said "bootflow scan -b". And then the above env portion is replaced with, well, what's documented in patch #40 if you don't just want to rely on device probe order.
Because we need to have _something_ that says where to look for what, yes?
Shouldn’t we describe the user point of view ?
No, because to extend the x86 metaphor we're talking about the defaults here, not what the user has configured later on. The user has and continues to be able to configure the system afterwards, if desired.