[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180607164950.GP510@tuxbook-pro>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 09:49:50 -0700
From: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc: Martijn Coenen <maco@...roid.com>,
Andy Gross <andy.gross@...aro.org>,
David Brown <david.brown@...aro.org>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Vikram Mulukutla <markivx@...eaurora.org>,
Arve Hj?nnev?g <arve@...roid.com>,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Jones <pjones@...hat.com>,
Dave Olsthoorn <dave@...aar.me>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
dmitry.torokhov@...il.com, mfuzzey@...keon.com,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
nbroeking@...com, Torsten Duwe <duwe@...e.de>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:ANDROID DRIVERS" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] efi: Add embedded peripheral firmware support
On Tue 08 May 09:10 PDT 2018, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 03:38:05PM +0000, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 12:44:37PM -0700, Martijn Coenen wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 10:55 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@...nel.org> wrote:
[..]
> > > 2) Most of those paths are not mounted by the time the corresponding
> > > drivers are loaded, because pretty much all Android kernels today are
> > > built without module support, and therefore drivers are loaded well
> > > before the firmware partition is mounted
>
> I've given this some more thought and you can address this with initramfs,
> this is how other Linux distributions are addressing this. One way to
> address this automatically is to scrape the drivers built-in or needed early on
> boot in initamfs and if the driver has a MODULE_FIRMWARE() its respective
> firmware is added to initramfs as well.
>
That could be done, but it would not change the fact that the
/sys/class/firmware is ABI and you may not break it.
And it doesn't change the fact that the ramdisk would have to be over
100mb to facilitate this.
> If you *don't* use initramfs, then yes you can obviously run into issues
> where your firmware may not be accessible if the driver is somehow loaded
> early.
>
This is still a problem that lacks a solution.
> > > 3) I think we use _FALLBACK because doing this with uevents is just
> > > the easiest thing to do; our init code has a firmware helper that
> > > deals with this and searches the paths that we care about
> > >
> > > 2) will change at some point, because Android is moving towards a
> > > model where device-specific peripheral drivers will be loaded as
> > > modules, and since those modules would likely come from the same
> > > partition as the firmware, it's possible that the direct load would
> > > succeed (depending on whether the custom path is configured there or
> > > not). But I don't think we can rely on the direct loader even in those
> > > cases, unless we could configure it with multiple custom paths.
>
> Using initramfs will help, but because of the custom path needs -- you're
> right, we don't have anything for that yet, its also a bit unclear if
> something nice and clean can be drawn up for it. So perhaps dealing with
> the fallback mechanism is the way to go for this for sure, since we already
> have support for it.
>
> Just keep in mind that the fallback mechanism costs you about ~13436 bytes.
>
Remember that putting the firmware in the ramdisk would cost about
10000x (yes, ten thousand times) more ram.
> So, if someone comes up with a clean interface for custom paths I'd love
> to consider it to avoid those 13436 bytes.
>
Combined with a way of synchronizing this with the availability of the
firmware, this would be a nice thing!
Regards,
Bjorn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists