Re: [PATCH edk2-platforms v1 22/38] Platform/Hisilicon/D06: Add OemNicLib

[Ming <ming.huang@linaro.org>]

在 8/15/2018 9:22 PM, Leif Lindholm 写道:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 07:08:33PM +0800, Ming wrote:
>>>>> Yes please.
>>>>> It would be good if we could have some (common) code to handle the
>>>>> fluke situation where you end up without your own MAC address.
>>>>> (So that the node can boot up and report that it is broken.)
>>>>> But it needs to be done in a reliable way, and that's too big a task
>>>>> for 18.08.
>>>>
>>>> I found some modules which invoke OemGetMac() don't judge the Status of
>>>> OemGetMac, so it may cause some issue now if changing to EFI_NOT_FOUND.
>>>> How about change it while we handle the fluke situation after 18.08 ?
>>>
>>> We cannot release 18.08 with known bugs.
>>> And not checking return value is a bug.
>>>
>>> I presume you mean that these calling functions are inside HwPkg?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> All D06 board will burn a Mac to eeprom before delivery and there is a
>> command (SetMac) to write a Mac.
>>
>> For handling the fluke situation, we think there are several ways:
>> 1 Initialize Mac to 0xFF;
>>   Kernel seems will create a random Mac while the Mac is 0xFF.
> 
> I have no objections to that, but it would prevent from netbooting.
> 
> But being unable to read the eeprom is a serious hw failure. So my gut
> feeling is that this should prevent the system from booting
> completely. If you want to make it possible to boot at all, and don't
> mind giving up netbooting for systems with known hardware failure, I
> think that's acceptable.
> 
>> 2 Make a Mac from ArmReadCntPct() and gTR->GetTime();
>> 3 Make a locally administered Mac from ArmReadCntPct() and gTR->GetTime();
>>
>> The 2nd is the way our product project use to handle the fluke situation.
>> What is your suggestion?
> 
> 2 is not OK.
> 
> 3 would be totally valid, but is basically just "do 2 properly".
> 
> And doing 2 properly means doing ARP lookups to ensure we don't have
> any duplicate MACs on the current network segment. Which is more
> effort (and probably functionality we want to get into edk2 core).
> 
> My recommendation for 18.08 would be doing 1. Then we have time to
> discuss nicer fallback options afterwards.

OK, doing 1 for 18.08.
I will send v3 patch set ASAP.
Thanks.


> 
> /
>     Leif
>