On Thu, Aug 07, 2025 at 09:41:34PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > On 8/7/25 6:21 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 07, 2025 at 03:41:38PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > On 8/7/25 12:24 PM, Philip Oberfichtner wrote: > > > > CONFIG_HAS_BOARD_SIZE_LIMIT is obsolete, if we interpret the value > > > > "zero" as "unlimited". > > > > > > This sentence makes no sense. Is the variable not obsolete if its value is > > > non-zero ? > > > > This is phrased oddly, yes. How about: > > By making the code treat a size limit of 0 as unlimited we no longer > > need to guard asking about having a size limit on the platform. > > 0 shouldn't mean unlimited, that is just fragile ...
That's a standard unix thing? ulimit -c 0 is unlimited. > > > [...] > > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig b/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig > > > > index c2aa88f59fb..36eed766d31 100644 > > > > --- a/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig > > > > +++ b/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig > > > > @@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ config EFI_SIGNATURE_SUPPORT > > > > config EFI_DEBUG_SUPPORT > > > > bool "EFI Debug Support" > > > > - default y if !HAS_BOARD_SIZE_LIMIT > > > > + default y if BOARD_SIZE_LIMIT = 0 > > > This looks wrong, no board size limit does not imply EFI anything. > > > > This is however preserving the existing functionality. Saying that no, > > we shouldn't enable EFI debug support by default in any cases would be a > > stand alone patch. > ... fragile and confusing. HAS_BOARD_SIZE_LIMIT is at least clear about what > it does. I don't know how one is more or less clear than the other, sorry. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
