Hi Tom, On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 at 09:23, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > 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
OK, so is that 'vexpress_ca9x4' in CI? Assuming those patches are going in, it's all the more important that we apply this revert and tidy things up quickly. Regards, Simon
