On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 07:00:10PM -0600, Jassi Brar wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 at 18:58, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 06:51:35PM -0600, jassisinghbrar@gmail.com wrote:
From: Jassi Brar jaswinder.singh@linaro.org
The patchset reduces ~400 lines of code, while keeping the functionality same and making meta-data operations much faster (by using cached structures).
Issue: meta-data copies (primary and secondary) are being handled by the backend/storage layer instead of the common core in fwu.c (as also noted by Ilias) that is, gpt_blk.c manages meta-data and similarly raw_mtd.c will have to do the same when it arrives. The code could by make smaller, cleaner and optimised.
Basic idea: Introduce .read_mdata() and .write_mdata() in fwu_mdata_ops that simply read/write meta-data copy. The core code takes care of integrity and redundancy of the meta-data, as a result we can get rid of every other callback .get_mdata() .update_mdata() .get_mdata_part_num() .read_mdata_partition() .write_mdata_partition() and the corresponding wrapper functions thereby making the code 100s of LOC smaller.
Get rid of fwu_check_mdata_validity() and fwu_mdata_check() which expected underlying layer to manage and verify mdata copies. Implement fwu_get_verified_mdata(struct fwu_mdata *mdata) public function that reads, verifies and, if needed, fixes the meta-data copies.
Verified copy of meta-data is now cached as 'g_mdata' in fwu.c, which avoids multiple low-level expensive read and parse calls. gpt meta-data partition numbers are now cached in gpt_blk.c, so that we don't have to do expensive part_get_info() and uid ops.
Changes since v4: * Change fwu-mdata-mtd bindings to not require external changes * Handle 'part == BOTH_PARTS' in fwu_sync_mdata * use parts_ok[] and parts_mdata[] instead of pri/sec_ok and p/s_mdata
Did you run this through CI / build sandbox? This doesn't read like you fixed the problem I reported in CI, when I was trying to merge v4.
I know that remains to be done. The dt-bindings for fwu-mdata is changed in this patchset and I thought any testcase may be impacted by it.
So you're not expecting this iteration to be merged, as CI doesn't pass, and that's known? OK.