Hi Tom, On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 at 02:42, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 01:18:25AM +0000, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > > > On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 at 03:47, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 07:05:47AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > This series collects together some new features for expo to make it more > > > > useful for boot menus: > > > > > > > > - measurement and display of multi-line text objects > > > > - internal alignment for objects (e.g. centred text) > > > > - editable strings in text fields > > > > - new 'box' object to draw a rectangle > > > > - highlighting of menu items, rather than just relying on a pointer > > > > > > > > Expo's boot menu is restructured so that it is possible to iterate > > > > through various bootdevs and update the menu as new ones are found. This > > > > is more in keeping with how bootstd works. > > > > > > > > A new textedit object is added, intended to provide a simple text > > > > editor. Future work will complete this. > > > > > > > > With this series the boot menu has a better layout and appearance. > > > > > > Did I already say this for v2 and forget? It looks like you forgot, > > > again, to split the expo stuff out from everything else, which others > > > might review. > > > > This series is all expo stuff. Can you please explain your objection > > more clearly? I still don't really understand. > > All of those patches that don't start with "expo:" aren't expo changes, > they're changes to other parts of the codebase.
Oh I see, you are talking about the video patches at the start. Yes I will send them separately. > > > > [snip] > > > > base-commit: 37ef92a972663c6de1b81d24d2ca5cfd664fc6df > > > > branch: schd2 > > > > > > Of course, not being on top of mainline, no one should spend much time > > > on this anyhow. > > > > As I thought we agreed, it is helpful to review patches so we can keep > > the trees in sync so far as possible. I take your point that few will > > be interested in expo and there may not be many comments, but sending > > it makes it available for review and potentially sending a PR for your > > tree at some point. > > Yes, said at some point we should try it. And it's been a failure, so > I'm saying to stop. If it's not based on top of one of the mainline > branches, don't post it. Enough other contributors have expressed their > unhappiness at reviewing non-mainline code. If you would like me to send patches against your tree, please consider applying the various series you have rejected. Regards, Simon
