Re: [PATCH v5 00/25] passage: Define a standard for firmware data flow

[Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2948 bytes --]

On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 03:32:12PM +0100, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> On Wed, 28 May 2025 at 15:25, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 06:32:02AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> > >
> > > This series adds a standard way of passing information between different
> > > firmware phases. This already exists in U-Boot at a very basic level, in
> > > the form of a bloblist containing an spl_handoff structure, but the intent
> > > here is to define something useful across projects.
> > >
> > > The need for this is growing as firmware fragments into multiple binaries
> > > each with its own purpose. Without any run-time connection, we must rely
> > > on build-time settings which are brittle and painful to keep in sync.
> > >
> > > This feature is named 'standard passage' since the name is more unique
> > > than many others that could be chosen, it is a passage in the sense that
> > > information is flowing from one place to another and it is standard,
> > > because that is what we want to create.
> > >
> > > The implementation is mostly a pointer to a bloblist in a register, with
> > > an extra register to point to a devicetree, for more complex data. This
> > > should cover all cases (small memory footprint as well as complex data
> > > flow) and be easy enough to implement on all architectures.
> > >
> > > The emphasis is on enabling open communcation between binaries, not
> > > enabling passage of secret, undocumented data, although this is possible
> > > in a private environment.
> > >
> > > To try this out:
> > >
> > > $ ./scripts/build-qemu -a arm -rsx
> > >
> > > This will build and run QEMU for arm64 and you should see the standdard
> > > passage working:
> > >
> > >    Core:  49 devices, 13 uclasses, devicetree: passage
> > >
> > > This series is available at u-boot-dm/pass-working
> > >
> > > Changes in v5:
> > > - Add RFC for test script
> >
> > And this is why I question if you are working in good faith. I've
> > rejected this countless times. I'm still rejecting it. Stop including
> > it. Point at the version you could easily be maintaining in the contrib
> > repository where you have write access and no one will be telling you to
> > not do something. People would even review the patches since it would be
> > against mainline.
> 
> I fully understand that you don't want the script and I'm only
> including (as an RFC) so people can actually try this series out. I
> didn't want to point to my tree as I thought that would annoy you. I
> already went through why the contrib tree is not suitable for me.

So I have to take changes that I disagree with, but you can't work with
a tree for your tooling where the community would be happy to provide
feedback? That does not sound like compromise. Again, I have trouble
believing that you are working in good faith to resolve the differences
here.

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 659 bytes --]