On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 09:17:43AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Heinrich, > > On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 at 08:53, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Heinrich, > > > > On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 at 07:38, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.g...@gmx.de> wrote: > > > > > > On 01.12.24 16:24, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > Rather than an integer, it is better to use the enum provided, when > > > > referring to an EFI memory-type. Update existing uses. > > > > > > > > Call the value 'mem_type' consistently. Fix up one instance of > > > > upper-case hex. > > > > > > > > Fix up the calls in struct efi_boot_services so that they use the same > > > > enum, adding the missing parameter names and enum efi_allocate_type. > > > > > > > > While we are here, rename the 'memory' parameter to 'memoryp' so that it > > > > is clear it is a return value. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > > > > > > Simon, I have no clue why you keep ignoring reviews. > > > This is just annoying and won't lead to merging patches. > > > > I got your feedback on [1] and incorporated it in v2 onwards. Did you > > notice? > > > > > > > > NAK > > It has been a week and I have not had any response on this. Does that > mean you are OK with the patch now?
I'm unclear what part of NAK implies that Heinrich is OK with this patch? I believe not since part of it was to not rename "memory" to "memoryp" and you're calling out doing that still. But I suspect you'll just keep this in your fork all the same. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
