Am 12.07.2016 um 16:25 schrieb Alexander Graf:
> On 12.07.16 14:45, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> Am 12.07.2016 um 09:30 schrieb Alexander Graf:
>>> On 12.07.16 06:21, Andreas Färber wrote:
>>>> We do so for the EFI binary already and it aids debugging.
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de>
>>>> ---
>>>> include/config_distro_bootcmd.h | 4 ++++
>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/config_distro_bootcmd.h
>>>> b/include/config_distro_bootcmd.h
>>>> index 8f14457..0cf74e2 100644
>>>> --- a/include/config_distro_bootcmd.h
>>>> +++ b/include/config_distro_bootcmd.h
>>>> @@ -149,6 +149,10 @@
>>>> "${prefix}${dtb_prefix}" \
>>>> "${dtb_vendor_prefix}" \
>>>> "${efi_fdtfile}; then " \
>>>> + "echo Found ${prefix}" \
>>>
>>> As mentioned in the other reply, I think this message is very useful,
>>> but should contain the target device name as well, so that we don't need
>>> to print out a message for every single partition we scan :).
>>
>> I originally had it that way, but remember that issues like with patches
>> 4 and 5 will not lead to any Found message at all. Therefore I still
>> prefer decoupling the two.
>
> We do detect the case where we don't have a working fdt loaded already,
> so we could probably print out the search paths there if we don't find a
> working fdt?
Feel free to make a follow-up patch...
>> Btw where does the "reading efi/boot/bootaa64.efi" message come from?
>> That one could be dropped as duplicate instead! :)
>
> Phew. The "load" command maybe?
Then why isn't it printing the same for the .dtb files? :)
Maybe it's some FAT debug thing?
Andreas
--
SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
