Re: [PATCH 0/8] efi_loader: Complete the bootflow_efi() test

Simon Glass
2025-01-07T13:58:20Z

Hi Heinrich,

On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 at 06:11, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> On 07.01.25 13:15, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Heinrich,
> >
> > On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 at 10:00, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk@gmx.de> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 06.01.25 15:47, Simon Glass wrote:
> >>> This test was hamstrung in code review so this series is an attempt to
> >>> complete the intended functionality:
> >>>
> >>> - Check memory allocations look correct
> >>> - Check that exit-boot-services removes active-DMA devices
> >>> - Check that the bootflow is still present after testapp finishes
> >>>
> >>> The EFI functionality duplicates bootm_announce_and_cleanup() and still
> >>> uses the defunct board_quiesce_devices() so a nice cleanup would be to
> >>> call the bootm function instead, with suitable modifications. That would
> >>> allow bootstage to work too.
> >>>
> >>> This series is based on sjg/master since the EFI logging was rejected so
> >>> far.
> >>
> >> Yes, it was rejected because a solution at the lib/log.c level would be
> >> more generic.
> >
> > As I mentioned, that idea isn't suitable for programmatic use.
>
> What can be done with show_addr("mem", rec->memory); that log_debug()
> does not offer or which you could not do with a new log function in
> lib/log.c that takes variadic arguments?

There are asserts in [1], for example. How do you propose to handle
that? See [2] for my previous explanation, quoted here:

> CONFIG_LOG with a bloblist option would be a great idea, but it's hard
> to programmatically scan text...plus only the external call sites are
> actually logged.

Also see the discussion on the original patch [3]. There was also your
reply at [4], but I think you missed that this is intended for use in
unit tests (i.e. with ut_assert()).

You also requested that this be generalised, rather than being
EFI-loader-specific. I have no objection to that, but don't have a use
case for it yet, so have deferred that to later. It's a fairly simple
change, if/when needed. If the series was not NAKed, I'd be happy to
do it now.

> >
> >>
> >> Tom suggested not to send patches that are for private enjoyment to the
> >> mailing list.
> >
> > My contributions to U-Boot are only ever about private enjoyment :-)
> >
> > Do you have any comments on the patches?

Regards,
Simon

[1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20250106144755.3054780-6-sjg@chromium.org/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/CAFLszTjxOE_037+kR0jgdax80sBombYo_k0YgiuVnP=KZCOvuA@mail.gmail.com/
[3] https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/CAC_iWjKtaN54B98OKbkoXkC_GmKJ=x+M4=UY_O6roSOpZaDxag@mail.gmail.com/
[4] https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/D513D326-41A6-425E-B11F-85958065BCD2@gmx.de/