Julius Werner wrote:
I think only coreboot should ever generate this format. I'm certainly not trying to make a case for "we should get other firmware projects to adopt coreboot tables" here, I don't think that makes any sense.
I think it makes some sense because coreboot does what we consider best. Of course we want others to reuse the very best parts of that.
But I also recognize that it is unlikely to happen, so to improve the situation overall (ie. also outside coreboot) I want to consider FDT in coreboot.
I'm trying to make the case for "unifying payload handoff formats between different firmwares is generally not a useful idea
MBR called to disagree.
and not worth the cost".
This is the only interesting discussion.
I understand that some people here want to instrumentalize coreboot to try to force Intel to change course on its USF specification, and honestly I don't really care about that one way or the other,
I find that silly polemic. I see this not as instrumentalizing coreboot but as coreboot accomodating Intel a little while also getting benefit - of course with the longer term goal of Intel and coreboot becoming a better match.
You don't have to care about USF or Intel but do consider that there probably would be no coreboot community within industry were coreboot not to add value to Intel hardware.
Our community is obviously not in danger over this but the better Intel and coreboot go together the more opportunities for really good solutions we may have in the future.
If coreboot doesn't push Intel then Intel will push coreboot (not neccessarily on purpose, just through inertia). You may want to ignore that for now but the coreboot will be dealing with the outcome for some time and now is when we can act.
I'm just asking to please not let the fallout of that negatively affect those of us who still just care about using coreboot as a firmware and not as a political cudgel.
I understand if you and others want to ignore politics, I did too for a long time.
That said, I wouldn't worry about negative effects. I certainly have no interest to remove coreboot tables nor do I see any reason to do so nor have I seen anyone mention anything in that direction.
Do not make up strawmen.
I don't think FDT is less suited than coreboot tables where it matters the most - simplicity on byte level.
..
I'm a bit confused by the hate for CBOR here to be honest,
..
I don't think parsing one of them without RAM would be much more cumbersome than the other.
..
FDT is a tokenized hierarchical key-value store with string keys (and a ton of extra quirks), whereas the coreboot tables are just a tagged list of C structures. That's an order of magnitude of difference in simplicity (and binary size).
A RAM-less FDT parser probably doesn't need to load the entire tree but merely find one value at a time, perhaps without state between values. The complexity of that in an FDT is low since FDT is flat and has simple primitives. CBOR, well..
--8<-- RFC8949 The initial byte of each encoded data item contains both information about the major type (the high-order 3 bits, described in Section 3.1) and additional information (the low-order 5 bits). With a few exceptions, the additional information's value describes how to load an unsigned integer "argument":
Less than 24: The argument's value is the value of the additional information.
24, 25, 26, or 27: The argument's value is held in the following 1, 2, 4, or 8 bytes, respectively, in network byte order. For major type 7 and additional information value 25, 26, 27, these bytes are not used as an integer argument, but as a floating-point value (see Section 3.3).
28, 29, 30: These values are reserved for future additions to the CBOR format. In the present version of CBOR, the encoded item is not well-formed.
31: No argument value is derived. If the major type is 0, 1, or 6, the encoded item is not well-formed. For major types 2 to 5, the item's length is indefinite, and for major type 7, the byte does not constitute a data item at all but terminates an indefinite- length item; all are described in Section 3.2. -->8--
This is bizarrely complex for storing a simple scalar.
what do you still need a handoff for at all? Just to parse the mainboard vendor string?
Memory map at a minimum.
I disagree with abandoning coreboot tables or forcing FDT generator code into coreboot images for those who aren't interested in this project.
So a way forward where you can ignore FDT is for coreboot tables to stay as-is, and a Kconfig option to make coreboot use its coreboot tables to generate an FDT.
I think keeping these things side-by-side in the code base with a Kconfig to switch between them
Like Arthur I don't appreciate the "side-by-side" narrative, nor an expectation for two independent data sets.
I'd like to make sure that we can agree to keep coreboot tables as a first-class citizen now and in the future, and don't force a new format on anyone.
I don't think anyone proposed to not generate coreboot tables anymore.
I'm talking about where this is eventually supposed to be headed, not just the first experimental patch.
This is supposed to be headed to additional benefit for both coreboot and USF (users). Others will use coreboot in different ways, e.g. without FDT.
I think we can all agree that there's no point in having two firmware handoff structures that both need to be parsed to get the full picture,
Noone suggested anything like that. Don't waste our time.
and since the argument for coreboot tables is mostly simplicity / lean code it's not a solution for that side to just generate both.
If you mean "it's not a solution for coreboot to just generate both" then I ask why not? Two things can be true at the same time: coreboot tables are simple to generate and the code to generate FDT from coreboot tables is also simple.
Well, Arthur also admitted that none of these points are really relevant to coreboot's payload handoff, ;) which I fully agree with.
Currently that may be true, but reflection would pretty much be required for a new payload for manual parameter tweaking during boot.
Yeah, but what's the use case?
There are several, both outside and within the boot process.
FDT can be meaningfully persisted and so be useful both before and after boot.
When have you ever had a situation where you'd want to edit coreboot table structures at runtime?
You can also consider FDT in coreboot as plumbing to enable new situations that were best avoided with coreboot tables, then of course noone ever wanted to edit them. That doesn't mean that noone would ever want to edit firmware handoff information, especially if we also consider FSP.
Please be a bit more imaginative here.
it would still not be very hard to write such a thing for coreboot tables
Of course. One goal is to have more freedom than that allows, or at a very minimum fill a namespace not (exclusively) defined by coreboot or Intel.
As I understand it, cbtable member alignment is currently undefined. That matters when building firmware and payload with different compilers. "Just use the coreboot compiler" is not a good answer.
Can we please stop perpetuating this myth? It's just wrong, like I already explained in my first email here.
I don't think it's wrong. I used to, but not anymore.
This is not about 64-bit values which you mentioned in your first email, this is about struct member offsets in the struct.
The structs are not packed so the compiler decides.
This is why both Nico and I are so strong proponents of explicit serialization of the tables. (I'd also like to create new tags for coreboot tables with packed values but that's another matter.)
ยน I wouldn't mind that btw., replacing ACPI.
That would be fantastic! But maybe it's more of a stretch goal. :)
FWIW I think this is a completely separate discussion and has nothing to do with what we should do for payload handoff (again, just like with the FSP thing, kernel handoff is a completely different thing that would have very little to share with it).
If all handoff interfaces were to use a single format (this would be great) then obviously it can be a single data set, which would make life simpler for a lot of different people.
(and not "soft deprecated" in favor of FDT,
Since this your narrative is baseless it makes it look like you are intentionally acting in bad faith. That's not a good look. Be careful.
or have the FDT stuff seep into something that can not be compiled out).
Like vboot has been for maybe a decade now yes, I agree strongly that this is important to avoid.
without stepping on each other's toes.
I wouldn't worry.
//Peter