HI Simon On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 9:51 PM Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 at 13:58, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 01:56:36PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 at 08:50, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 03:36:24PM +0100, Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Tom > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 9:07 PM Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 08:57:36PM +0100, Michael Nazzareno > > > > > > Trimarchi wrote: > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > > > > > > No, I'm not saying I'll take this if someone uses it somewhere. But > > > > > > I've been asking for in previous iterations for showing that it > > > > > > makes > > > > > > some existing use case easier. And I don't see any implementations > > > > > > of > > > > > > that in v4. Adding UEFI boot to this isn't a good example since > > > > > > that's > > > > > > already being re-done via the UEFI boot manager series that > > > > > > implements > > > > > > what the spec says to do for that. > > > > > > > > > > I don't think that a lot of real use cases in embedded devices are > > > > > using distro boot but > > > > > they have proper customized boot flow and update, recovery. What you > > > > > call A, B and C. > > > > > Then we have a special recovery path that instead of using emmc , uses > > > > > a usb pen drive. Having > > > > > some more structure boot flow with documentation and some use cases > > > > > will help to have in uboot what it's in > > > > > private repositories. > > > > > > > > Exactly. My concern is that this does, or will end up, spending a lot > > > > of effort to replicate the "find an arbitrary bootable thing" logic the > > > > UEFI boot manager stuff has to do to that spec rather than making it > > > > easier to handle the common everything else cases where the developer > > > > knows the valid cases for normal boot and recovery boot and needs to do > > > > whatever validation is required there. Maybe that's where some of the > > > > hang up is. > > > > > > I'm actually not sure where the hang-up is. We seem to be enforcing > > > UEFI everywhere in U-Boot. That must make some people very happy, but > > > it is not the right approach to take for a general purpose, > > > open-source, Universal Boot Loader. > > > > > > If U-Boot is to remain a boot loader for non-UEFI cases, then I think > > > bootstd is an important step forward. There is more work to do, but it > > > sets up the basic abstractions and is a strong base to work from. > > > > > > Or is U-Boot for UEFI only, with only 'boot manager' allowed to have a > > > structured boot? > > > > > > I hope not, but I'm struggling to read much else from this thread. > > > > Perhaps you and I need to have a call at some point soon then? It is > > not my intention to make UEFI the only, or only well supported, way of > > booting things. > > Sure, I could do this time tomorrow or 2-3 hours earlier / later. I am > around on irc.
Can this happen in regular meetings? Michael > > Regards, > Simon > > > > > -- > > 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
