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 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6B91C433F5 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 18:06:30 +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 0C3D260E53 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 18:06:30 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 0C3D260E53 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=chromium.org 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 E363283771; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 20:06:26 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=chromium.org 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; unprotected) header.d=chromium.org header.i=@chromium.org header.b="lN6tSEaj"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by phobos.denx.de (Postfix, from userid 109) id 8FC1F83786; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 20:06:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-ua1-x92f.google.com (mail-ua1-x92f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::92f]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by phobos.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CA2D8376B for ; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 20:06:11 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=chromium.org Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sjg@google.com Received: by mail-ua1-x92f.google.com with SMTP id e10so1647089uab.3 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 11:06:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=0PrFpU4DY1tzwUNiTaxC7PmBqoww585kGqaIx7QXv1g=; b=lN6tSEajvZlcatotJ/wYliPnpGBNSY8yriu8zqs0/BBz6MQ484p7eicsGcBM7y4fS9 F7+fy7zp0zPMJOznYgGTBCoNnAUPw5tQfyzyUldwaAatxgOzvyC/8Lylp3w1V9f5oWL6 tg2gFJspnDGna6iKJLJmpPzQJkEVTwHWvtHPo= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=0PrFpU4DY1tzwUNiTaxC7PmBqoww585kGqaIx7QXv1g=; b=0h6jsOIrPs8PwJf+cQPpVZ2PYG8gHGRADFEEmYMsGlQH3edee1ELL/Xftzb8rzL3TA eJPnOt+whaHeWDRzFmunaTQV0t+tOipuLEqasOEoMDiFiNmiecz1fVwnr1ZVINhgublS VHT6sMF35qsp5H2vpOBbyrYJbu1F7xyyhDFFvNQ/VM9/WgLh/68AiWqB7QgP7xAJ2TVp 39AoX0VvXN/0D1wwR0hs8pBMFx/3URczPVMhf5MtdjHDMoHUHGKdV0J+qCxEBzdjorEt AFrFrnSYYmojMRFr3dQAJTaxVv2HKhGG0xqR1JCwniLO2MlDJ/LCJzh0gooBnuLurlN+ zU6g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532nUV4QbN/VQ9h8AmIEBciOV8R3ZHrQ29C4mHgz9g0MvMbt9Cwe 3Q8YsCQxwLbqDduAym3XnAExl6sRz9qW4EEAn1+91A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxgzfJWb0ssMcBVQEHG8a4cqzosgpEzwmpe3EhoLkCMl6OHcaEm4r+L3mlHMmeOFzaE02TTsFh6Kje3exnljJ0= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6130:321:: with SMTP id ay33mr812782uab.140.1634148369901; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 11:06:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20211001050228.55183-15-takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> <20211004032759.GC39720@laputa> <20211008005156.GA34717@laputa> <3455705e-1b04-cf01-3cff-b89f673c5e05@gmx.de> <20211011022925.GE44356@laputa> <64774cd7-2119-347a-4d2b-3715fa2a8029@gmx.de> <20211012151417.GZ7964@bill-the-cat> <20211013013217.GC43695@laputa> In-Reply-To: <20211013013217.GC43695@laputa> From: Simon Glass Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 12:05:58 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC 07/22] dm: blk: add UCLASS_PARTITION To: AKASHI Takahiro , Tom Rini , Simon Glass , Heinrich Schuchardt , U-Boot Mailing List , Alex Graf , Ilias Apalodimas Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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 Hi Takahiro, On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 at 19:32, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 11:14:17AM -0400, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 10:14:00AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > Hi Heinrich, > > > > > > On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 at 09:02, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/11/21 16:54, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > Hi Takahiro, > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 10 Oct 2021 at 20:29, AKASHI Takahiro > > > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> Heinrich, > > > > >> > > > > >> On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 10:23:52AM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On 10/8/21 02:51, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > > > > >>>> On Mon, Oct 04, 2021 at 12:27:59PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > > > > >>>>> On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 11:30:37AM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> On 10/1/21 07:01, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > > > > >>>>>>> UCLASS_PARTITION device will be created as a child node of > > > > >>>>>>> UCLASS_BLK device. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro > > > > >>>>>>> --- > > > > >>>>>>> drivers/block/blk-uclass.c | 111 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > >>>>>>> include/blk.h | 9 +++ > > > > >>>>>>> include/dm/uclass-id.h | 1 + > > > > >>>>>>> 3 files changed, 121 insertions(+) > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/block/blk-uclass.c b/drivers/block/blk-uclass.c > > > > >>>>>>> index 83682dcc181a..dd7f3c0fe31e 100644 > > > > >>>>>>> --- a/drivers/block/blk-uclass.c > > > > >>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/block/blk-uclass.c > > > > >>>>>>> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ > > > > >>>>>>> #include > > > > >>>>>>> #include > > > > >>>>>>> #include > > > > >>>>>>> +#include > > > > >>>>>>> #include > > > > >>>>>>> #include > > > > >>>>>>> #include > > > > >>>>>>> @@ -695,6 +696,44 @@ int blk_unbind_all(int if_type) > > > > >>>>>>> return 0; > > > > >>>>>>> } > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> +int blk_create_partitions(struct udevice *parent) > > > > >>>>>>> +{ > > > > >>>>>>> + int part, count; > > > > >>>>>>> + struct blk_desc *desc = dev_get_uclass_plat(parent); > > > > >>>>>>> + struct disk_partition info; > > > > >>>>>>> + struct disk_part *part_data; > > > > >>>>>>> + char devname[32]; > > > > >>>>>>> + struct udevice *dev; > > > > >>>>>>> + int ret; > > > > >>>>>>> + > > > > >>>>>>> + if (!CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(PARTITIONS) || > > > > >>>>>>> + !CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(HAVE_BLOCK_DEVICE)) > > > > >>>>>>> + return 0; > > > > >>>>>>> + > > > > >>>>>>> + /* Add devices for each partition */ > > > > >>>>>>> + for (count = 0, part = 1; part <= MAX_SEARCH_PARTITIONS; part++) { > > > > >>>>>>> + if (part_get_info(desc, part, &info)) > > > > >>>>>>> + continue; > > > > >>>>>>> + snprintf(devname, sizeof(devname), "%s:%d", parent->name, > > > > >>>>>>> + part); > > > > >>>>>>> + > > > > >>>>>>> + ret = device_bind_driver(parent, "blk_partition", > > > > >>>>>>> + strdup(devname), &dev); > > > > >>>>>>> + if (ret) > > > > >>>>>>> + return ret; > > > > >>>>>>> + > > > > >>>>>>> + part_data = dev_get_uclass_plat(dev); > > > > >>>>>>> + part_data->partnum = part; > > > > >>>>>>> + part_data->gpt_part_info = info; > > > > >>>>>>> + count++; > > > > >>>>>>> + > > > > >>>>>>> + device_probe(dev); > > > > >>>>>>> + } > > > > >>>>>>> + debug("%s: %d partitions found in %s\n", __func__, count, parent->name); > > > > >>>>>>> + > > > > >>>>>>> + return 0; > > > > >>>>>>> +} > > > > >>>>>>> + > > > > >>>>>>> static int blk_post_probe(struct udevice *dev) > > > > >>>>>>> { > > > > >>>>>>> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PARTITIONS) && > > > > >>>>>>> @@ -713,3 +752,75 @@ UCLASS_DRIVER(blk) = { > > > > >>>>>>> .post_probe = blk_post_probe, > > > > >>>>>>> .per_device_plat_auto = sizeof(struct blk_desc), > > > > >>>>>>> }; > > > > >>>>>>> + > > > > >>>>>>> +static ulong blk_part_read(struct udevice *dev, lbaint_t start, > > > > >>>>>>> + lbaint_t blkcnt, void *buffer) > > > > >>>>>>> +{ > > > > >>>>>>> + struct udevice *parent; > > > > >>>>>>> + struct disk_part *part; > > > > >>>>>>> + const struct blk_ops *ops; > > > > >>>>>>> + > > > > >>>>>>> + parent = dev_get_parent(dev); > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> What device type will the parent have if it is a eMMC hardware partition? > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> + ops = blk_get_ops(parent); > > > > >>>>>>> + if (!ops->read) > > > > >>>>>>> + return -ENOSYS; > > > > >>>>>>> + > > > > >>>>>>> + part = dev_get_uclass_plat(dev); > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> You should check that we do not access the block device past the > > > > >>>>>> partition end: > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Yes, I will fix all of checks. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> struct blk_desc *desc = dev_get_uclass_plat(parent); > > > > >>>>>> if ((start + blkcnt) * desc->blksz < part->gpt_part_info.blksz) > > > > >>>>>> return -EFAULT. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> + start += part->gpt_part_info.start; > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> A better solution is: > > > > >>>> if (start >= part->gpt_part_info.size) > > > > >>>> return 0; > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> if ((start + blkcnt) > part->gpt_part_info.size) > > > > >>>> blkcnt = part->gpt_part_info.size - start; > > > > >>>> start += part->gpt_part_info.start; > > > > >>>> instead of returning -EFAULT. > > > > >>>> (note that start and blkcnt are in "block".) > > > > >>> > > > > >>> What is your motivation to support an illegal access? > > > > >>> > > > > >>> We will implement the EFI_BLOCK_IO_PROTOCOL based on this function. The > > > > >>> ReadBlocks() and WriteBlocks() services must return > > > > >>> EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER if the read request contains LBAs that are not > > > > >>> valid. > > > > >> > > > > >> I interpreted that 'LBA' was the third parameter to ReadBlocks API, > > > > >> and that if the starting block is out of partition region, we should > > > > >> return an error (and if not, we still want to trim IO request to fit > > > > >> into partition size as other OS's API like linux does). > > > > >> Do you think it's incorrect? > > > > > > > > > > [..] > > > > > > > > > > Related to this patch I think that the partition type should be really > > > > > be a child of the media device: > > > > > > > > > > - MMC > > > > > |- BLK > > > > > |- PARTITION > > > > > |- BLK > > > > > |- PARTITION > > > > > |- BLK > > > > > |- PARTITION > > > > > |- BLK > > > > > > > > > > It seems more natural to me that putting the partitions under the > > > > > top-level BLK device, so that BLK remains a 'terminal' device. > > > > > > > > > > The partition uclass is different from BLK, of course. It could > > > > > contain information about the partition such as its partition number > > > > > and UUID. > > > > > > > > Do you mean hardware partition here? Otherwise I would not know what BLK > > > > should model. > > > > > > I mean that (I think) we should not use BLK to model partitions. A BLK > > > should just be a block device. > > > > > > I don't see any difference between a partition and a hardware > > > partition. We presumably end up with a hierarchy though. Do we need a > > > HWPARTITION uclass so we can handle the hardware partitions > > > differently? > > > > Note that for eMMC devices, hardware partitions are different from > > partition-table partitions. If you boot a system with an eMMC device up > > in Linux you typically get mmcblkN, mmcblkNboot0, mmcblkNboot1 and > > mmcblkNrpmb, each of which are hardware partitions. It gets tricky in > > U-Boot in that you can access each of these with 'mmc dev N M' where M > > defaults to 0 and is the user partition (mmcblkN), 1/2 are boot0/boot1 > > and 3 is the rpmb area. The 'mmc' command also allows, when possible > > and implemented, configuring these partitions, again to the extent > > allowed, documented and implemented. > > Thank you. That is exactly what I tried to mention in my reply > at "part: call part_init() in blk_get_device_by_str() only for MMC" OK so it sounds like we agree that hwpartition and partition are different things. > > ---8<--- > # On the other hand, we have to explicitly switch "hw partitions" > # with blk_select_hwpart_devnum() on MMC devices even though we use > # the *same* udevice(blk_desc). > --->8--- > > The problem with the current U-Boot driver model is that all of "mmcblkN, > mmcblkNboot0, mmcblkNboot1 and mmcblkNrpmb" will be linked to the same > udevice. We have to do "mmc dev N M" or call blk_select_hwpart[_devnum]() > to distinguish them. Here's our chance to rethink this. What should the device hierarchy be for an MMC device? I made a proposal further up the thread. > > When it comes to UEFI, I hope we can currently support hw partitions > in this way: > => efidebug add boot -b 1 FOO mmc 0.1 /foo.bin "" > (".1" is a key, I have never tried this syntax though.) > > But probably its device path won't be properly formatted > as expected as Heinrich suggested. > > -Takahiro Akashi > > > > In terms of modeling, this is akin to how if you use a USB card reader > > that supports 4 different form-factor cards, you can end up with 4 > > different devices showing up in Linux (if you have one of the nice card > > readers that supports multiple cards at once). > > > > -- > > Tom > > Regards, Simon