Am 20. November 2024 19:06:33 MEZ schrieb Tom Rini <[email protected]>: >On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 05:55:18PM +0200, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: >> Hi Simon, >> >> On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 at 17:37, Simon Glass <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > HI Ilias, >> > >> > On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 at 05:32, Ilias Apalodimas >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > >> > > Hi Simon, >> > > >> > > On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 at 20:02, Simon Glass <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > Hi Ilias, >> > > > >> > > > On Tue, 29 Oct 2024 at 19:32, Ilias Apalodimas >> > > > <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, 29 Oct 2024 at 17:45, Simon Glass <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi Ilias, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Tue, 29 Oct 2024 at 10:58, Ilias Apalodimas >> > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hi Simon, >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 at 14:48, Simon Glass <[email protected]> >> > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > It is a bit of a pain to log EFI boot-services calls at >> > > > > > > > present. The >> > > > > > > > output goes to the console so cannot easily be inspected >> > > > > > > > later. Also it >> > > > > > > > would be useful to be able to store the log and review it >> > > > > > > > later, perhaps >> > > > > > > > after something has gone wrong. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > This series makes a start on implementing a log-to-buffer >> > > > > > > > feature. It >> > > > > > > > provides a simple 'efidebug log' command to inspect the >> > > > > > > > buffer. For now, >> > > > > > > > only memory allocations are logged. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Why is this problem specific to EFI and no U-Boot in general? Do >> > > > > > > we >> > > > > > > have a similar machinery for malloc()? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Mostly because an app can make EFI calls and we want to know what >> > > > > > they >> > > > > > are, e.g. to debug them and figure out what might be wrong when >> > > > > > something doesn't boot. >> > > > > >> > > > > EFI_PRINT() has been proven pretty useful for this. I don't >> > > > > personally >> > > > > see the point of adding ~1300 lines of code to replace a print. >> > > > > What would make more sense is teach EFI_PRINT to log errors in a >> > > > > buffer. >> > > > >> > > > Is that a NAK? Please be clear if you are reviewing the code or just >> > > > rejecting the whole idea. >> > > >> > > For the idea, no. But I don't think what's implemented here is what we >> > > want. >> > > >> > > To track what EFI services are called, we already have EFI_ENTRY and >> > > EFI_EXIT. >> > > Why don't we instead, add a logging service (and we already have >> > > ftrace iirc) and plug it in the macros above? >> > > That would make more sense not to mention way less code. >> > >> > I am wanting to programmatically log and manage what EFI_LOADER does, >> > so that bootstd can present a high-level view of what is going on, >> > e.g. which protocols are used, how much memory is allocated and where. >> > So this is not just about logging text output. >> >> Why the EFI_LOADER only? Bootstd is supposed to cover more cases, so >> why not a generic framework for all boot commands? > >This feels similar to the point I've made elsewhere in this overarching >series, why not do this at existing common points in the code path? >
The common code point is the log library. Just add an event there for which the test can register a handler. With a log event you get: function name source location message class message text message priority and all of this with minimal invasiveness. Best regards Heinrich
