On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 08:41:09AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Raymond,
> 
> On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 at 08:25, Raymond Mao <raymond....@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > +CC Ilias,
> >
> > Hi Simon,
> >
> > On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 at 20:57, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > The logic of this has become too confusing.
> > >
> > > The primary issue with the patch is that U-Boot needs to set up a
> > > bloblist in the first phase where BLOBLIST is enabled. Subsequent
> > > phases can then use that bloblist.
> > >
> > > But the first phase of U-Boot cannot assume that one exists.
> > >
> > > Reverting this commit seems like a better starting point for getting
> > > things working for all use-cases.
> > >
> > > This reverts commit 66131310d8ff1ba228f989b41bd8812f43be41c3.
> > >
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/CAPnjgZ3hMHtiH=f5zkxnniofv_-vfryq1gn7qz5hku8wjo8...@mail.gmail.com/
> > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>
> > > ---
> > >
> >
> > If my understanding is correct, you want to add some logic to control
> > when the U-Boot should or should not get the bloblist from the
> > existing register argument.
> > But xferlist_from_boot_arg() should be called when a valid register
> > argument is there, I didn't see this in your patch.
> > Maybe you plan to do this with other patch series, but simply
> > reverting this results in a breaking of handoff policy and the
> > firmware handoff won't work.
> 
> Yes, I certainly did not want to revert it, but the current code is
> too hard to understand and I did not look at it at the time it went
> in. I've had three tries at working with what you have here, but each
> turns to spaghetti.
> 
> I would like to build on this and get something running in CI which
> uses standard passage. As Tom suggests, perhaps we should disconnect
> bloblist and standard passage?
> 
> On the CI point, is there a board we could add that uses the
> xferlist_from_boot_arg() call?

Yes: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?series=442824

-- 
Tom

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to