Re: [RFC 07/22] dm: blk: add UCLASS_PARTITION

AKASHI Takahiro
2021-11-01T00:36:17Z

On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 07:45:14AM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
>
>
> Am 29. Oktober 2021 23:17:56 MESZ schrieb Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>:
> >Hi,
> >
> >On Fri, 29 Oct 2021 at 13:26, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk@gmx.de> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Am 29. Oktober 2021 08:15:56 MESZ schrieb AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>:
> >> >On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 06:57:24AM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > I agree with Heinrich that we are better to leave BLK as it is, both
> >> >> > in name and meaning. I think maybe I am missing the gist of your
> >> >> > argument.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If we use UCLASS_PART, for example, can we have that refer to both s/w
> >> >> > and h/w partitions, as Herinch seems to allude to below? What would
> >> >> > the picture look like the, and would it get us closer to agreement?
> >> >>
> >> >> In the driver model:
> >> >>
> >> >> A UCLASS is a class of drivers that share the same interface.
> >> >> A UDEVICE is a logical device that belongs to exactly one UCLASS and is
> >> >> accessed through this UCLASS's interface.
> >> >
> >> >Please be careful about "accessed through" which is a quite confusing
> >> >expression. I don't always agree with this view.
> >> >
> >> >> A hardware partition is an object that exposes only a single interface
> >> >> for block IO.
> >> >>
> >> >> A software partition is an object that may expose two interfaces: one
> >> >> for block IO, the other for file IO.
> >> >
> >> >Are you talking about UEFI world or U-Boot?
> >> >Definitely, a hw partitions can provide a file system
> >> >if you want.
> >> >It's a matter of usage.
> >> >
> >> >I remember that we had some discussion about whether block devices
> >> >on UEFI system should always have a (sw) partition table or not.
> >> >But it is a different topic.
> >> >
> >> >> The UEFI model does not have a problem with this because on a handle you
> >> >> can install as many different protocols as you wish. But U-Boot's driver
> >> >> model only allows a single interface per device. Up to now U-Boot has
> >> >> overcome this limitation by creating child devices for the extra interfaces.
> >> >
> >> >> We have the following logical levels:
> >> >>
> >> >> Controller | Block device | Software Partition| File system
> >> >> ----------------+--------------+-------------------+------------
> >> >> NVMe Drive | Namespace | Partition 1..n | FAT, EXT4
> >> >> ATA Controller | ATA-Drive | |
> >> >> SCSI Controller | LUN | |
> >> >> MMC Controller | HW-Partition | |
> >> >> MMC Controller | SD-Card | |
> >> >> USB-Node | USB-Drive | |
> >> >>
> >> >> In the device tree this could be modeled as:
> >> >>
> >> >> |-- Controller (UCLASS_CTRL)
> >> >> | |-- Block device / HW Partition (UCLASS_BLK) (A)
> >> >> | | |-- Partition table (UCLASS_PARTITION_TABLE) (B)
> >> >> | | |-- Software Partition (UCLASS_BLK)
> >> >> | | |-- File system (UCLASS_FS)
> >> >> | |
> >> >> | |-- Block device (UCLASS_BLK)
> >> >> | |-- File system (UCLASS_FS)
> >> >
> >> >I don't know why we expect PARTITION_TABLE and FS to appear in DM tree.
> >> >What is the benefit?
> >> >(A) and (B) always have 1:1 relationship.
> >>
> >> No. You can have a bare device without a partition table.
> >
> >I can have a DOS partition that covers the whole device, without a
> >partition table. This is supported in U-Boot and Linux.
> >
> >>
> >> We have several partition table drivers: DOS, GPT, OSX, ... . In future we should also have one for the NOR Flash partitions. All of these drivers have a common interface. As the partition table type is mostly independent of the block device type we should use separate uclasses and udevices.
> >>
> >> >I also remember that you claimed that not all efi objects(handles and
> >> >protocols like SIMPE_FILE_SYSTEM_PROTOCOL) need to have corresponding
> >> >U-Boot counterparts in our 2019 discussion.
> >> >
> >> >If we *need* PARTITION_TALBLE, why don't we have HW_PARTITION_TABLE,
> >> >which should support other type of hw partitions as well?
> >>
> >> How hardware partitions, LUNs, ATA drives are enumerated is specific to the type of controller while the type of software partition table is independent of the block device.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >|-- eMMC controller (UCLASS_MMC)
> >> >| |-- eMMC device1 / Physical media (UCLASS_HW_PARTITION_TABLE?)
> >> >| |-- Block device / HW Partition:user data (UCLASS_BLK)
> >> >| | |-- Partition table (UCLASS_PARTITION_TABLE)
> >> >| | |-- Software Partition (UCLASS_BLK)
> >> >| | |-- File system (UCLASS_FS)
> >> >| |
> >> >| |-- Block device / HW Partition:boot0 (UCLASS_BLK)
> >> >| |-- Block device / HW Partition:boot1 (UCLASS_BLK)
> >> > ...
> >> >| |-- eMMC device2 / Physical media (UCLASS_HW_PARTITION_TABLE?)
> >> >
> >> >|-- scsi controller (UCLASS_SCSI)
> >> >| |-- scsi disk / Physical media (UCLASS_HW_PARTITION_TABLE?)
> >> >| |-- scsi LUN1 (UCLASS_HW_PARTITION_TABLE?)
> >> >| | |-- Partition table (UCLASS_PARTITION_TABLE)
> >> >| | |-- Software Partition (UCLASS_BLK)
> >> >| |-- scsi LUN2 (UCLASS_HW_PARTITION_TABLE?)
> >> > ...
> >> >
> >> >(Here I ignored scsi buses/channels which make things more complicated.)
> >> >
> >> >This kind of complex hierarchy doesn't benefit anybody.
> >>
> >> All these levels exist already. We simply do not model them yet in the DM way.
> >>
> >> The device tree depth is the outcome of the udevice exposing always only a single interface defined by the uclass.
> >>
> >> The UEFI design allows installing multiple protocol interfaces on a single handle. This may result in simpler device trees in some cases.
> >
> >Yes, the complexity has to go somewhere. With driver model I chose to
> >have a single interface per uclass, since it is simpler to understand,
> >no need to request a protocol for a device, etc.
> >
> >Our current setup is similar to this
> >
> >|-- Controller (UCLASS_MMC)
> >| |-- Block device (UCLASS_BLK) - 'usual' HW partition
> >| |-- Block device (UCLASS_BLK) - e.g. for a different HW partition*
> >
> >* although I don't think the MMC code actually supports it - SCSI does though
> >
> >We want to add devices for the partition table and the filesystem, so could do:
> >
> >|-- Controller (UCLASS_MMC)
> >| |-- Block device (UCLASS_BLK) - 'usual' HW partition (the whole device)
> >| | |-- Partition table (UCLASS_PART) - DOS partition (or EFI)
> >| | | |-- Block device (UCLASS_BLK) - partition 1
> >| | | | |-- Filesystem (UCLASS_FS) - DOS filesystem
> >| | | |-- Block device (UCLASS_BLK) - partition 2
> >| | | | |-- Filesystem (UCLASS_FS) - ext5 filesystem
> >| |-- Block device (UCLASS_BLK) - e.g. for a different HW
> >partition (the whole device)
> >
> >This is similar to Heinrich's, but without the top-level
> >UCLASS_HW_PARTITION_TABLE which I am not sure is necessary.
>
> Are further MMC hw partitions, multiple SCSI LUNs and multiple NVME namespaces already treated as separate BLK devices?

Yes.
What I meant to say is that, if we don't need a partition table 'udevice'
for hw partitions, we don't need such a device for sw partitions neither.

Meanwhile, what about UCLASS_FS? Why do we need this?

-Takahiro Akashi

> Regards
>
> Heinrich
>
>
> >
> >It is compatible with what we have now and we could enable/disable the
> >extra devices with a Kconfig.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Simon
> >
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> >> UCLASS_PARTITION_TABLE would be for the drivers in disk/.
> >> >> UCLASS_FS would be for the drivers in fs/.
> >> >> UCLASS_BLK will be for any objects exposing raw block IO. A software
> >> >> partition does the same. It is created by the partition table driver as
> >> >> child of the partition table udevice.
> >> >>
> >> >> In this model an eMMC device will not be a UCLASS_BLK device because it
> >> >> does not expose block IO. It is the hardware partition that exposes this
> >> >> interface.
> >> >>
> >> >> The suggested model will allow a clean description of nested partition
> >> >> tables.
> >> >>
> >> >> In the UEFI world the software partition and its file system must be
> >> >> mapped to a single handle with device path node type HD(). For the
> >> >> parent block device we may create a child handle with partition number 0
> >> >> (HD(0)). For the partition table we will not create a handle.
> >> >>
> >> >> Best regards
> >> >>
> >> >> Heinrich