Hi Tom, On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 at 12:57, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 12:46:17PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > > > On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 at 07:25, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 08:00:56AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > While we do plan to switch to OF_SEPARATE now it is supported, it seems > > > > worth at least showing how OF_EMBED could be used instead, just for the > > > > record. > > > > > > > > So make the Makefile rule conditional on OF_SEPARATE and adjust fdtdec > > > > to avoid a build error when OF_EMBED is used. > > > > > > > > Finally. the dtb symbol has a double underscore, so update it to avoid a > > > > build warning. > > > > > > > > With future patches, OF_EMBED will no-longer be used with the EFI app, > > > > so it is expected that it will eventually stop working. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <[email protected]> > > > > Fixes: 2e7bf25f6bf ("Support separate DTB files with the UEFI app") > > > > --- > > > > > > > > Makefile | 2 +- > > > > include/asm-generic/sections.h | 2 +- > > > > lib/fdtdec.c | 2 +- > > > > 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > Applied to sjg/master, thanks! > > > > > > Since you've picked up several series that no one was objecting to and > > > providing reasonable feedback on and applied them to your own tree, do > > > you plan to squash/rebase them and repost so they can be applied to > > > master / next at some point? > > > > The original EFI-app series actually had objections in toto. Did you > > not see the comments from Heinrich? > > I assume you mean: > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/[email protected]/#3419029 > which is a question.
Apart from the general tone, it was mostly the cover letter. > > > I've offered to send pull requests every now and then, to keep things > > in sync, if that is your goal? But I don't believe I can do that for > > particular patches/series. It is going to be hard enough for me to > > just maintain my own tree, let along dealing with your/Linaro tree. > > I find you calling the mainline project tree "your/Linaro tree" > offensive. And I'm again asking you to explain in public what you are > doing exactly. I'm sorry you are offended. Please suggest a better name that I can use. Honestly, from my point of view, it feels like a Linaro-controlled tree. There's nothing particularly wrong with that, but I would like the freedom to continue to innovate U-Boot, without Linaro telling me what to do. Does that sound OK to you? Regards, Simon
