[coreboot] CBFS bullfart (forked from GSoC-2014 Project for Coreboot)
mr.nuke.me at gmail.com
Fri Mar 14 17:53:12 CET 2014
Fucking Kmail is broken. How many times did it reply to the original sender
instead of the list?
On Friday, March 14, 2014 11:51:54 AM you wrote:
> On Friday, March 14, 2014 08:58:01 AM you wrote:
> > CBFS is definitely not friendly to environments that can't map() the
> > storage area of the CBFS itself. Beyond that in-storage format with
> > metadata tightly coupled to the data itself leads to needing to stream
> > large amounts of data through the working set just to locate the piece
> > that is desired.
> > On top of that the CBFS API doesn't allow for freeing up of used
> > resources. Yes, there is the construct of map() and unmap(), but the
> > used API in the code base returns pointers from map() and that means
> > there is no way to free up the internal cache.
> I found out that keeping track of the last map() pointer allows you to free
> the cache during unmap(), as currently, operations come in map/unap pairs.
> Sadly, this is just an accident of how CBFS core works. This design also
> places the burden of cache management on the backend, which also has to deal
> with whatever device it deals with. A pretty bad abstraction model.
> > However, read() doesn't
> > solve the map() problem. read() and map() both need memory so in a
> > constrained environment w/o memory-mapped access to the CBFS storage.
> The CBFS core doing map() + memcpy() doubles the resource requirements with
> no real gain.
> > Lastly, the big reason for large map() requests is because we don't
> > have a pipelined lzma path.
> Compression is "don't care" for the CBFS core until the stage is
> decompressed. By the time you realize you don't need to decompress, you've
> already map()ed the whole of romstage, which you now need to memcpy() to
> its destination.
> > For the non-lzma files read() will work exactly as you described.
> Not for non-lzma stages, which is the relevant bit for the bootblock, before
> you get to romstage, where supposedly, you'll have RAM later on.
> I don't care that much anymore about this problem. I found a workaround for
> it, but someone else will drop the soap when doing the next little SoC.
> > I noticed in your code  you just read in all of the CBFS in-core.
> > Or did I misread that? And your init_default_cbfs_media() always
> > re-initializes and reads the CBFS again? I take it that function only
> > gets called once? Most likely because that is the bootblock.
> I only initialize the CBFS mirror once. If the code finds a valid CBFS
> signature in RAM, it skips the whole re-read-this step.
> > > 
> > > https://github.com/mrnuke/coreboot/blob/369998920685852246dcae4c3e88b268
> > > c1
> > > c9f2dc/src/cpu/allwinner/a10/bootblock_media.c
More information about the coreboot