Hi Simon,
On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 at 10:58, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote:
> Hi Ilias,
>
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 at 06:41, Ilias Apalodimas
> <ilias.apalodi...@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Simon,
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 02:24:31PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > Hi Ilias,
> > >
> > > On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 at 00:02, Ilias Apalodimas
> > > <ilias.apalodi...@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > > > > >> ---
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> lib/fdtdec.c | 12 ++++++++++--
> > > > > > > >> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> diff --git a/lib/fdtdec.c b/lib/fdtdec.c
> > > > > > > >> index b2c59ab3818..b141244e3b9 100644
> > > > > > > >> --- a/lib/fdtdec.c
> > > > > > > >> +++ b/lib/fdtdec.c
> > > > > > > >> @@ -1669,8 +1669,16 @@ int fdtdec_setup(void)
> > > > > > > >> {
> > > > > > > >> int ret = -ENOENT;
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> - /* If allowing a bloblist, check that first */
> > > > > > > >> - if (CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(BLOBLIST)) {
> > > > > > > >> + /*
> > > > > > > >> + * If allowing a bloblist, check that first. This
> would be better
> > > > > > > >> + * handled with an OF_BLOBLIST Kconfig, but that
> caused far too much
> > > > > > > >> + * argument, so add a hack here, used e.g. by
> chromebook_coral
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am a bit confused by this comment - It means you will not
> use OF_BLOBLIST,
> > > > > > > > but actually you are using it below. Is it a typo?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Basically it would be cleaner to have a separate,
> phase-specific
> > > > > > > Kconfig control as to whether the DT can come from the
> bloblist (I
> > > > > > > can't remember the Kconfig name I suggested, nor the patch as
> it was
> > > > > > > last year sometime). But for now I am adding this hack to get
> a few
> > > > > > > boards working again.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am a bit confused.
> > > > > > First of all the comment is innapropriate. We went through a
> lengthy
> > > > > > discussion on BLOBLIST/OF_BLOSLIST etc and, even Tom chimed in
> and we
> > > > > > made up our minds. Why are you adding this comment now? Why do
> code
> > > > > > comments have to illustrate your personal opinion -- which was
> > > > > > rejected?
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm sorry for the tone of the comment. I am not trying to offend
> > > > > anyone here and I'm happy to change the language.
> > > >
> > > > Yes please a comment explaining why that piece of code is there is
> far
> > > > more intuitive.
> > >
> > > OK, once we have agreed the below I can do that.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > As I probably
> > > > > mentioned at the time, my accepted patch breaks my workflow and
> > > > > several boards. I hope you can understand how frustrating that
> sort of
> > > > > thing can be.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I do and I am fine with a short-term patch that fixes issues, as
> > > > long as its not too intrusive. There is a very thin line between
> quick
> > > > and dirty fixes to spaghetti unreadable code. But we should have
> > > > comments and/or commit messages indicating that this needs a proper
> > > > fix
> > >
> > > I spent a lot of time explaining this last time.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Also, now that I have my lab back up and running and I
> > > > > would like these boards to work again on mainline!
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Grepping for OF_BLOBLIST, I can't find any matches, so is the
> above if a typo?
> > > > >
> > > > > Remember, it was a patch you rejected :-)
> > > >
> > > > I don't maintain any of that. I only gave some feedback along the
> > > > lines of "bloblist was designed to be auto-discoverable, I don't see
> > > > how adding an explicit Kconfig helps". IIRC we eventually followed
> > > > what Tom suggested.
> > >
> > > I'm not trying to point the finger here. So far the boards are broken
> > > in mainline...I'm just trying to fix that,
> > >
> > > >
> > > > In any case, the amount of bike-shedding in the topic is too much. Do
> > > > you mind explaining the problem in your workflow again? Perhaps we
> can
> > > > find a solution that is integrated in bloblist_maybe_init() instead
> of
> > > > injecting ifs on when a bloblist should or should not be searched for
> > > > all over the place.
> > >
> > > TPL (or SPL) sets up a bloblist with bits of info in it, but no DT
> > > (which is in memory-mapped SPI flash)
> > > U-Boot proper starts up, it wants to get the bloblist but not hang if
> > > the bloblist doesn't have a DT
> >
> > Sure, that's reasonable and IIRC that's the design we agreed a while
> back.
> > Looking at the code, if the DT isn't found in a bloblist and the feature
> is
> > enabled, we don't crash. We just print a debug message and continue to
> find
> > the DT as we used. Why do we have to skip the call to
> > bloblist_maybe_init()?
>
> Because at this point, if there is no bloblist, then it needs to be
> created. But creating it this early may fail, e.g. since there is no
> malloc(). The intent of this code is to locate an FDT from an existing
> bloblist. There is no point in creating a new bloblist here, since it
> obviously won't have an FDT in it.
>
> Can we add a bool arg to bloblist_init for this?
Eg. int bloblist_init(bool allow_malloc);
Regards,
Raymond
