Hi all,
On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 at 18:03, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi Ard,
On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 at 17:00, Ard Biesheuvel ardb@kernel.org wrote:
On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 at 20:17, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi Ard,
On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 at 11:33, Ard Biesheuvel ardb@kernel.org wrote:
On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 at 19:54, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi Rob,
On Tue, 26 Sept 2023 at 13:42, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
It is common to split firmware into 'Platform Init', which does the initial hardware setup and a "Payload" which selects the OS to be booted. Thus an handover interface is required between these two pieces.
Where UEFI boot-time services are not available, but UEFI firmware is present on either side of this interface, information about memory usage and attributes must be presented to the "Payload" in some form.
This aims to provide an small schema addition for the memory mapping needed to keep these two pieces working together well.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org
Changes in v7:
- Rename acpi-reclaim to acpi
- Drop individual mention of when memory can be reclaimed
- Rewrite the item descriptions
- Add back the UEFI text (with trepidation)
I am again checking on this series. Can it be applied, please?
Apologies for the delay in response. I have been away.
OK, I hope you had a nice trip.
Thanks, it was wonderful!
Changes in v6:
- Drop mention of UEFI
- Use compatible strings instead of node names
Changes in v5:
- Drop the memory-map node (should have done that in v4)
- Tidy up schema a bit
Changes in v4:
- Make use of the reserved-memory node instead of creating a new one
Changes in v3:
- Reword commit message again
- cc a lot more people, from the FFI patch
- Split out the attributes into the /memory nodes
Changes in v2:
- Reword commit message
.../reserved-memory/common-reserved.yaml | 71 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 71 insertions(+) create mode 100644 dtschema/schemas/reserved-memory/common-reserved.yaml
diff --git a/dtschema/schemas/reserved-memory/common-reserved.yaml b/dtschema/schemas/reserved-memory/common-reserved.yaml new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f7fbdfd --- /dev/null +++ b/dtschema/schemas/reserved-memory/common-reserved.yaml @@ -0,0 +1,71 @@ +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause +%YAML 1.2 +--- +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/reserved-memory/common-reserved.yaml# +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
+title: Common memory reservations
+description: |
- Specifies that the reserved memory region can be used for the purpose
- indicated by its compatible string.
- Clients may reuse this reserved memory if they understand what it is for,
- subject to the notes below.
+maintainers:
- Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org
+allOf:
- $ref: reserved-memory.yaml
+properties:
- compatible:
- description: |
This describes some common memory reservations, with the compatiblestring indicating what it is used for:acpi: Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) tablesacpi-nvs: ACPI Non-Volatile-Sleeping Memory (NVS). This is reserved bythe firmware for its use and is required to be saved and restoredacross an NVS sleepboot-code: Contains code used for booting which is not needed by the OSboot-code: Contains data used for booting which is not needed by the OSruntime-code: Contains code used for interacting with the system whenrunning the OSruntime-data: Contains data used for interacting with the system whenrunning the OS- enum:
- acpi- acpi-nvs- boot-code- boot-data- runtime-code- runtime-dataAs I mentioned a few times already, I don't think these compatibles should be introduced here.
A reserved region has a specific purpose, and the compatible should be more descriptive than the enum above. If the consumer does not understand this purpose, it should simply treat the memory as reserved and not touch it. Alternatively, these regions can be referenced from other DT nodes using phandles if needed.
We still need some description of what these regions are used for, so that the payload can use the correct regions. I do not have any other solution to this problem. We are in v7 at present. At least explain where you want the compatible strings to be introduced.
My point is really that by themselves, these regions are not usable by either a payload or an OS that consumes this information. Unless there is some other information being provided (via DT I imagine) that describes how these things are supposed to be used, they are nothing more than memory reservations that should be honored, and providing this arbitrary set of labels is unnecessary.
What sort of extra detail are you looking for? Please be specific and preferably add some suggestions so I can close this out ASAP.
A payload or OS can do nothing with a memory reservation called 'runtime-code' it it doesn't know what is inside. So there is another DT node somewhere that describes this, and that can simply point to this region (via a phandle) if it needs to describe the correspondence. This is more idiomatic for DT afaik (but I am not the expert). But more importantly, it avoids overloading some vague labels with behavior (e.g., executable permissions for code regions) that should only be displayed for regions with a particular use, rather than for a ill defined class of reservations the purpose of which is not clear.
What I am trying to avoid is the OS ending up being forced to consume this information in parallel to the EFI memory map, and having to reconcile them. I'd be much happier if this gets contributed to a spec that only covers firmware-to-firmware, and is prevented from leaking into the OS facing interface.
I don't know about "another DT node". We don't have one at present.
There is already a note in the DT spec about this:
3.5.4 /reserved-memory and UEFI
When booting via [UEFI], static /reserved-memory regions must also be listed in the system memory map obtained via the GetMemoryMap() UEFI boot time service as defined in [UEFI] ยง 7.2. The reserved memory regions need to be included in the UEFI memory map to protect against allocations by UEFI applications.
Reserved regions with the no-map property must be listed in the memory map with type EfiReservedMemoryType. All other reserved regions must be listed with type EfiBootServicesData.
Dynamic reserved memory regions must not be listed in the [UEFI] memory map because they are allocated by the OS after exiting firmware boot services.
I don't fully understand what all that means, but does it cover your concern?
I have reread the discussion on this memory-reservation problem, several dozen emails at this point. I believe we have covered everything.
For now we will go with the binding in this patch. I hope it can be applied soon, or if not, someone can send a different proposal to meet the requirements.
Regards, Simon