From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49E9AC433F5 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 10:42:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from phobos.denx.de (phobos.denx.de [85.214.62.61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6436261263 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 10:42:27 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 6436261263 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmx.de Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lists.denx.de Received: from h2850616.stratoserver.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by phobos.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id F191382986; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 12:42:24 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmx.de Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=gmx.net header.i=@gmx.net header.b="FeUeHFvB"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by phobos.denx.de (Postfix, from userid 109) id 340DE82C2B; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 12:42:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.19]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by phobos.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 012D382849 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 12:42:18 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmx.de Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xypron.glpk@gmx.de DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1631702538; bh=eL4KysgXlZLLsVkBNAB5PgnnRdhuajcX25gkbHyne14=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Date:From:To:CC:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=FeUeHFvBKEM5sn9qMoER2s1cEwSFuwSe92Xm6zy2Z2gqZ8HMVIOwMv50i4WqE8ccl czuvdIPAQvFaCGLog5TbkgwzKIWl15TeKqEDoChscQ2jDcKVWoknZZhKcoJ+ebIyWI rA2I5w7xGIjNRW8EGA4iTQjfzV37a7ltvAySLgXs= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([46.253.247.75]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx004 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1M6DWs-1mX44o05vs-006bCk; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 12:42:18 +0200 Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 12:42:16 +0200 From: Heinrich Schuchardt To: Michael Lawnick CC: sjg@chromium.org, u-boot@lists.denx.de Subject: Re: RFC: exclude partitions from efi_selftest User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: <65886be5-884e-afb7-947a-b93e5904b1f7@gmx.de> References: <26bcd1d1-7d39-91a4-a0d4-942efd0826a9@gmx.de> <65886be5-884e-afb7-947a-b93e5904b1f7@gmx.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:Kn3Ey/Cg786Dt6dlOKf3CSTAfQPulIr4nQfHHPs83uOkMKphPbX q/mTjgrhU8k4YebZfvWNXAPXjUcP5O6RQ5LcOtl2t3XjwT4JCgMTP9MPL80prSol3ZT4rjx MNDSLosKYhV410ReN+tFOf8cEy71fl0uvxeNM+DeCN0/6NqH61HH+1zvy0lSsj7SGCtMtqX qIxehJ0A4ChaorVAmgyZQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:nWL1CFSE1cM=:qQdsf0ODgRV+VhidWLvAOM rBDXf4D9ukUbF3cTiKuAELYok5PDLpw+HYNM4KrMnlJ5mvgkyohMcoXuG+JcokfhQVzIY0hbV 66SrWlEX+/hgobOm828Mq99PHY9NSgZwXYawfzjL14ABg4CVMCC5JiXQ28QH8YJYJG4LglrZ2 tNVLlUSsk93g+at+F+yvXbvJc+RvxnPydqL7VyKCpfagwr+koT98igPZkOacM4MRJwNu8er8J 5boGDZ9lkG3PCIBeLQ6Pq1uJQcAvO01l+S7BLrhE+ixXFxLxPjIRGPbzhrTx+uS+8lzxajuS7 vrSZ6L+CRgLz9NzlHKnl2L2j3ye1GLicc4edYHxfE6AEZmMBQ6W51HwatrThvaGdjNs4wOOVL 92TNnenPn/DLAKPJFxT4BPsjpJvBsAbZBVsdyrFRPnoozcawLcikY5ckW7keLRkGuUaOp7YFx r8X484hJL4CqUq2GBpYJ2CVvH1WvdFv6g7eXgKAR2FfS7nR+aZumbwRfSKpRvd6d7K6Bzzh16 NCLv5DauasXIjU0ZWFq/0AFn32065CECVwRFXJrwOnYKnhauDcgYKmHdpzFdxZ6jxor3SWaPc ReL7Ovwh36euxxpIMsSWLDolUL3uNGkd4XDR69Kdx2XYVbDdodpatgbJTIVquxwgbd+CbLFXo GAi6+ZWxGpRi/7Pq9w6TgIFvE7MhG2K0GNTZ5UxKHEtx+pNRDuQiVhbQhriFLCblwV5CQB5p8 J08Knzd7g/MVBIJojLqDhUS5R4zcuKlVbGAScVluyhI6Il2Q40ZhfRpVbzUAoHrPksfemwah/ HkOmsU/sWK4e1pkj9BEdmPa7nWE+FVpIAA/E5X+1gnfgSVrVXVJNi10hQl9o5pzxyI2NptRfG uKz2/69IXjQ7UJv+er3hfAmhNl8X4ivr6zxX5qbB17aS4SvEPsw1pT7U34HGR6oZJBiG/286t yBjYkJ0/MBmuF0JeIKJUdoKJM6HpPBBWDSz3vLcwoBQr8U5zF9U8horIA/ujzUpAXszOEZQ/M jN+5LDtboFACI6JvfOgYQXwD4Ytm+sgjuxsFhQqV49Os936hgTeXZ90uwgL97Hei8DpPJo8Kt 9MhRA8hpyQCrM8= X-BeenThere: u-boot@lists.denx.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: U-Boot discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de Sender: "U-Boot" X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.103.2 at phobos.denx.de X-Virus-Status: Clean Am 15=2E September 2021 11:56:07 MESZ schrieb Michael Lawnick : >Am 14=2E09=2E2021 um 17:57 schrieb Heinrich Schuchardt: >> On 9/14/21 4:56 PM, Michael Lawnick wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> in our environment we get error on efi_selftest if one of several SSD >>> partitions isn't properly initialized (due to some other error, but >>> that's a different topic)=2E I tried to track down to where the partit= ions >>> get registered for test but got a bit lost so I request advice from yo= u=2E >> >> When the UEFI sub-system is intialized we call efi_disk_register()=2E I= f >> it fails, we don't enter the UEFI sub-system=2E >> >> Are you able to identify where efi_disk_register() fails? > >The system starts up properly=2E >This is what I see: >ASIM-CN10KAS> efiload $loadaddr >Loaded EFI App image at 0x40080000 with 0x216000 bytes >ASIM-CN10KAS> bootefi $loadaddr $fdtaddr >Scanning disk sdhci@824000000000=2Eblk=2E=2E=2E >** Unrecognized filesystem type ** >** Unrecognized filesystem type ** >** Unrecognized filesystem type ** This is not an error=2E Just an info=2E >Found 8 disks >Init Monotonic Count to zero >=2E=2E=2E > >But the efi selftest fails=2E > >> >>> >>> Shouldn't be the registering of partitions for self test been made >>> dependent on successful basic init? I wouldn't qualify a non-initializ= ed >>> partition as reason to let self test fail=2E If at all a warning shoul= d be >>> sufficient=2E >>> As far as I understand efi self test is intended more as a functional >>> regression test, not a H/W system test, isn't it? >>> What about the idea to allow to exclude partitions by environment vari= able? >> >> We use efi_selftest in our continuous integration=2E Patches that make = it >> fail will not be accepted upstream=2E It is nothing that you need on a >> deployed production system=2E >> > >Somehow I miss the connection between my question and your answer=2E >We want to integrate the efi_selftest into our CI, too=2E But if it fails >due to one uninitialized partition out of 8 then things become more >complicated than they should=2E Based on this I am asking why this proble= m >exists at all=2E Could you, please send the complete output starting with 'bootefi selftest= '=2E Best regards Heinrich=20 > >-- >KR >Michael >