Hi Tom On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 8:30 PM Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 08:21:22PM +0100, Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi wrote: > > Hi Tom > > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 7:46 PM Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 at 08:05, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 06, 2022 at 05:49:43AM -0700, 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) > > > > > > > > > > This series provides an implementation of these, enabled to scan for > > > > > bootflows from MMC, USB and Ethernet. It supports the existing distro > > > > > boot as well as the EFI loader flow (bootefi/bootmgr). It works > > > > > similiarly to the existing script-based approach, but is native to > > > > > U-Boot. > > > > > > > > > > With this we can boot on a Raspberry Pi 3 with just one command: > > > > > > > > > > bootflow scan -lb > > > > > > > > > > which means to scan, listing (-l) each bootflow and trying to boot > > > > > each > > > > > one (-b). The final patch shows this. > > > > > > > > > > With a standard way to identify boot devices, booting become easier. > > > > > It > > > > > also should be possible to support U-Boot scripts, for backwards > > > > > compatibility only. > > > > > > > > > > This series relies on the PXE clean-up series, posted here: > > > > > > > > > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?series=267078 > > > > > > > > > > For documentation, see the 'doc' patch. > > > > > > > > > > For version 2, a new naming scheme is used as above: > > > > > > > > > > - bootdev is used instead of bootdevice, because 'device' is > > > > > overused, > > > > > is everywhere in U-Boot, can be confused with udevice > > > > > - bootmeth - because 'method' is too vanilla, appears 1300 times in > > > > > U-Boot > > > > > > > > > > Also in version 2, drivers are introduced for the boot methods, to > > > > > make > > > > > it more extensible. Booting a custom OS is simply a matter of > > > > > creating a > > > > > bootmeth for it and implementing the read_file() and boot() methods. > > > > > > > > > > Version 4 makes some minor improvements and leaves out the RFC patch > > > > > for > > > > > rpi conversion, in the hope of getting the base support applied sooner > > > > > rather than later. > > > > > > > > > > The design is described in these two documents: > > > > > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ggW0KJpUOR__vBkj3l61L2dav4ZkNC12/view?usp=sharing > > > > > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kTrflO9vvGlKp-ZH_jlgb9TY3WYG6FF9/view?usp=sharing > > > > > > > > I keep putting off commenting more here, but, I still feel this is the > > > > wrong direction. What problems do we have today with distro boot? > > > > Well, we haven't figured out how to move configuring it out of the board > > > > config.h file. But that's just one of a half dozen or so examples of > > > > how we haven't figured out a good solution to configuring the default > > > > environment. And only some of those other examples are boot related > > > > (the NXP chain of trust booting stuff is another boot example, ETHPRIME, > > > > HOSTNAME, etc, are non-boot examples). > > > > > > > > We also aren't improving testing of "can we boot" here, because what > > > > THAT needs is setting up LAVA and booting some installers on some > > > > hardware (and some QEMU). That's testing that Linux boot works. Today > > > > we have tests for hush parsing, and if distro boot makes use of > > > > something we don't have a test for, we need a test for it. This adds > > > > tests for itself, which is good. > > > > > > > > And I still don't see an example of where this demonstrates that > > > > existing non-UEFI boot cases are now easier to handle or cleaner to > > > > handle or otherwise better. > > > > > > > > In that this is an attempt to tackle one of the long standing needed > > > > migrations (be able to drop board config.h files), something here needs > > > > doing. But I don't see this as the right direction, sorry. > > > > > > Does anyone have a better idea for all of this? This is a solid base > > > we can build on but we can't make any progress while this is just > > > patches. What not apply it and we can move forward? > > > > > > > I agree with Simon. Having a well documented flow, help to integrate > > products and have a standard > > way to handle the booting flow > > > > > - solves the env problem for distro boot in that we don't need the scripts > > > - gets rid of the scripts which are a confusing mess > > > - provides proper high-level concepts of boot device and boot method > > > - allows testing of the U-Boot part of 'can we boot' because we have > > > tests for all the cases - we can expand this over time > > > - allows non-UEFI boot cases like Chrome OS, which is currently just a > > > hack for one board[1] > > > - provides a programmatic base for A/B boot, etc. > > > > > > I feel the same way with Takahiro's series, which has been out-of-tree > > > for too long. > > > > I don't see the problem in having it merged. I'm dealing every day > > with crazy script > > to handle situation like [1] and I think that company that integrates > > their product can > > benefits on those changes. They can be improved with other people > > wants to use it > > in their products. > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > Please reconsider this. What do we have to lose? > > > > > > Regards, > > > Simon > > > > > > [1] CONFIG_BOOTCOMMAND="tpm init; tpm startup TPM2_SU_CLEAR; read mmc > > > 0:2 100000 0 80; setexpr loader *001004f0; setexpr size *00100518; > > > setexpr blocks $size / 200; read mmc 0:2 100000 80 $blocks; setexpr > > > setup $loader - 1000; setexpr cmdline_ptr $loader - 2000; setexpr.s > > > cmdline *$cmdline_ptr; setexpr cmdline gsub %U \\\\${uuid}; if part > > > uuid mmc 0:2 uuid; then zboot start 100000 0 0 0 $setup cmdline; zboot > > > load; zboot setup; zboot dump; zboot go;fi" > > OK, and what does your example here look like on top of Simon's series? > Or do you just mean ChromeOS boot?
I can use some of our boards and move on to the Simon patchset. In that case, are you happy with it? Michael > > -- > Tom -- Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi Co-Founder & Chief Executive Officer M. +39 347 913 2170 mich...@amarulasolutions.com __________________________________ Amarula Solutions BV Joop Geesinkweg 125, 1114 AB, Amsterdam, NL T. +31 (0)85 111 9172 i...@amarulasolutions.com www.amarulasolutions.com