Re: [PATCH 00/31] passage: Define a standard for firmware data flow

From: "François Ozog" <francois.ozog@linaro.org>
To: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
Cc: albert.u.boot@aribaud.net, bill.mills@linaro.org,
	bmeng.cn@gmail.com,  ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org, marex@denx.de,
	morpheus.ibis@gmail.com,  qemu-devel@nongnu.org,
	sjg@chromium.org, trini@konsulko.com,  u-boot@lists.denx.de,
	vanbaren@cideas.com, xypron.glpk@gmx.de,
	 yamada.masahiro@socionext.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/31] passage: Define a standard for firmware data flow
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2021 21:45:19 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHFG_=WNHyhHj+RCJOMz89wEW50grYv_veKTfnGTRG0ZEKQ4oA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d3caa60fcbd1a482@bloch.sibelius.xs4all.nl>

Hi Mark,

Le lun. 1 nov. 2021 à 19:19, Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl> a
écrit :

> > From: François Ozog <francois.ozog@linaro.org>
> > Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2021 09:53:40 +0100
>
> [...]
>
> > We could further leverage Passage to pass Operating Systems parameters
> that
> > could be removed from device tree (migration of /chosen to Passage).
> Memory
> > inventory would still be in DT but allocations for CMA or GPUs would be
> in
> > Passage. This idea is to reach a point where  device tree is a "pristine"
> > hardware description.
>
> I wanted to react on something you said in an earlier thread, but this
> discussion seems to be appropriate as well:
>
> The notion that device trees only describe the hardware isn't really
> correct.  Device trees have always been used to configure firmware
> options (through the /options node) and between firmware and the OS
> (through the /chosen node) and to describe firmware interfaces
> (e.g. OpenFirmware calls, PSCI (on ARM), RTAS (on POWER)).  This was
> the case on the original Open Firmware systems, and is still done on
> PowerNV systems that use flattened device trees.

> I understand and agree with the above.
Yet, PSCI is different from /options and /chosen: those are platform
services made available to the OS when the boot firmware code has been
unloaded/neutralized.

What I (not just myself but let’s simplify) am trying to decouple the
supply chain: loosely coupled platform provider (ODM), the firmware
provider, OS provider, application provider. So it is not to prevent
presence of those existing nodes, it is to be able introduce some
rationalization in their use:

Platform interfaces such as PSCI: The question is “who” injects them in the
DT (build time or runtime). There is no single good answer and you may want
the authoritative entity that implements the service to actually inject
itself in the DT passed to the OS. I know some platforms are using SMC
calls from U-Boot to know what to inject in the DT. I see those as the same
nature of DIMM sensing and injection in the DT.

/chosen:  a must have when you do not have UEFI but not necessary with UEFI.

/options: it should be possible for the end customer to make the decision
of integration: at build time or at runtime based on a separate flattened
device tree file.

This decoupling should result for instance, in the long run, in adjustable
memory layouts without headaches. changing the secure dram size is simple
from hardware perspective but a massive issue from a firmware perspective:
multiple firmware projects sources need to be adjusted, making manual
calculations on explicit constants or “hidden” ones. It should even be
possible to adjust it at runtime on the field (user selected firmware
parameter).

> I don't see what the benefits are from using Passage instead.  It
> would only fragment things even more.
>
-- 
François-Frédéric Ozog | *Director Business Development*
T: +33.67221.6485
francois.ozog@linaro.org | Skype: ffozog