Hi Tom, On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 at 06:59, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 06:10:54AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > > > On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 at 07:33, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 09, 2025 at 02:14:54PM -0700, Simon Glass 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. > > > > > > > > Note: The work to tidy this up is apparently underway. For this series, > > > > a revert is the easiest path. > > > > > > > > This reverts commit 66131310d8ff1ba228f989b41bd8812f43be41c3. > > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/CAPnjgZ3hMHtiH=f5zkxnniofv_-vfryq1gn7qz5hku8wjo8...@mail.gmail.com/ > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > > > > --- > > > > > > > > (no changes since v1) > > > > > > > > common/bloblist.c | 64 ++++++++++++++-------------------------------- > > > > include/bloblist.h | 10 -------- > > > > 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 55 deletions(-) > > > > > > We aren't reverting this change so if you plan to move this series out of > > > your downstream fork you should start from that and stop posting it, > > > that just leads to confusion. > > > > Who is 'we', and start from what? > > We, being the community, in here, the community mainline U-Boot project > tree. > > > My goal with this series is to have something that actually boots on a > > real board, so the bloblist changes are needed for that, particularly > > as the 'vbe' board in the lab tests this on the hardware. I > > deliberately put these two patches at the end of the series so you can > > ignore them if you'd like. > > > > But for now, as I understand it, there are no users of standard > > passage in tree, so actually it would be fine to apply them. > > And you can ignore all the feedback you like for your downstream fork, > sure. > > Part of the feedback in this series already was "Yes, we can clean this > up a bit more if bloblist will do its own thing instead".
So I see that Raymond's patch is a significant rewrite of what is there today, with multiple aims and changes. I would rather add my revert and start from a cleaner place. - Simon
