> From: Simon Glass <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2024 07:39:22 -0700 > > Hi,
Hi Simon, > On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 at 05:52, Heinrich Schuchardt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 11/1/24 21:29, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > >> From: Janne Grunau <[email protected]> > > >> Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2024 23:48:02 +0100 > > >> > > >> DM_FLAG_VITAL marks devices which are essential for the operation of > > >> other devices. Removing these devices before their users can result in > > >> hangs or crashes. > > >> This potentially fixes EFI boot of Renesas rcar3 devices. Their clock > > >> devices (and with this series the dart iommu) are the only devices > > >> markes as vital. > > >> The arm boot code already handles devioce removal in this way. > > > > > > There is a typo in that last sentence of the commit message (devioce). > > > Otherwise: > > > > > >> Signed-off-by: Janne Grunau <[email protected]> > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Mark Kettenis <[email protected]> > > > > > >> --- > > >> lib/efi_loader/efi_boottime.c | 1 + > > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > >> > > >> diff --git a/lib/efi_loader/efi_boottime.c > > >> b/lib/efi_loader/efi_boottime.c > > >> index > > >> 4f52284b4c653c252b0ed6c0c87da8901448d4b4..7db3c95782970f8c06a970a8ee86b1804cd848b6 > > >> 100644 > > >> --- a/lib/efi_loader/efi_boottime.c > > >> +++ b/lib/efi_loader/efi_boottime.c > > >> @@ -2234,6 +2234,7 @@ static efi_status_t EFIAPI > > >> efi_exit_boot_services(efi_handle_t image_handle, > > >> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_USB_DEVICE)) > > >> udc_disconnect(); > > >> board_quiesce_devices(); > > >> + dm_remove_devices_flags(DM_REMOVE_ACTIVE_ALL | > > >> DM_REMOVE_NON_VITAL); > > >> dm_remove_devices_flags(DM_REMOVE_ACTIVE_ALL); > > > > Simon's patch 6224dc9ba428 ("arm: Remove vital devices last") addressed > > the same issue for bootm on arm. But what about about other architectures? > > > > This logic should be moved to drivers/core/root.c instead of replicating > > code. > > We could have a common helper, but it should not be in driver/core as > this ordering is more of a policy decision. Unless we can add a > parameter telling dm exactly what to do... But I don't think it makes sense for this to be a per-architecture policy (like it is now). Also, not that outside of the testsuite, we currently either do: dm_remove_devices_flags(DM_REMOVE_ACTIVE_ALL | DM_REMOVE_NON_VITAL); dm_remove_devices_flags(DM_REMOVE_ACTIVE_ALL); or just: dm_remove_devices_flags(DM_REMOVE_ACTIVE_ALL); and I'd argue that all instances of the latter should be converted into the latter. So we really would only have a single policy here...
