Hi Tahahiro,
On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 at 19:57, AKASHI Takahiro takahiro.akashi@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Simon,
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 05:12:45PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Takahiro,
On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 at 20:03, AKASHI Takahiro takahiro.akashi@linaro.org wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 07:48:59PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Takahiro,
On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 at 19:31, AKASHI Takahiro takahiro.akashi@linaro.org wrote:
Simon,
On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 03:41:50PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
Hello Simon,
On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 09:07:01PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > This is a patch for Takahiro to look at, just for illustration. Not ready > for review.
Thank you for posting the draft. At a first glance, it looks good and I don't see any specific issue with your implementation.
I said OK and functionally it should work well, but I now have some concerns:
- In my current implementation, I use post_probe/pre_remove hooks of BLK device to invoke efi callback functions. In this sense, event(POST_PROBE/ PRE_REMOVE) seems to be a duplicated feature in some way.
We should not be calling EFI functions from a BLK devince, unless it is an EFI block device, i.e. we should provide hooks for EFI or any other interested party to use.
Even for now, part_init() is called in post_probe() (and blk_create_partitions(), which is to create another type of uclass device, in my patch as well). So I'm not sure what functions can and should be called and what not in those hooks.
Do you want to convert part_init() to an event subscriber along with my efi hooks?
You could do. From my reading of the code it makes sense to do that.
Ok, but I will put this change on hold for now.
One of problems with the proposed framework of event notification is that we cannot deterministically specify the order of callback functions when we want to add callbacks for a number of subsystems to a particular event. For instance, we have callbacks for efi_disk creations as well as partitions (part_init() & blk_create_partitions()) at POST_PROBE of BLK devices, they should (logically) be called in this order but currently no definite guarantee. If we utilise a callback to create efi_disk's for "partition" devices as well, this situation can get more complicated. # Why? If the order of invocations is the other way around, efi_disks # for partitions might be created before an efi_disk for a whole disk.
Yes I was wondering if that would cause problems.
We also need to think about discoverability. It needs to be *very easy* to see a list of callbacks for an event a priori and we don't want debugging to be a pain.
I'll take a look at adding priority and some commands to list the callbacks.
Regards, Simon