On 2/23/23 17:32, Tom Rini wrote:
On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 02:22:51PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 2/23/23 11:41, Patrick DELAUNAY wrote:
Hi Marek,
Hi,
On 2/9/23 13:30, Marek Vasut wrote:
Consistently use 'if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PARTITION_TYPE_GUID))' instead of
mix of ifdef.
Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de>
---
Cc: Patrice Chotard <patrice.chot...@foss.st.com>
Cc: Patrick Delaunay <patrick.delau...@foss.st.com>
Cc: Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com>
---
V2: Replace CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(PARTITION_TYPE_GUID) with
IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PARTITION_TYPE_GUID)
---
env/mmc.c | 4 +---
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/env/mmc.c b/env/mmc.c
index 5b01f657a7a..d51a5579128 100644
--- a/env/mmc.c
+++ b/env/mmc.c
@@ -73,8 +73,7 @@ static inline int mmc_offset_try_partition(const
char *str, int copy, s64 *val)
if (str && !strncmp((const char *)info.name, str,
sizeof(info.name)))
break;
-#ifdef CONFIG_PARTITION_TYPE_GUID
- if (!str) {
+ if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PARTITION_TYPE_GUID) && !str) {
const efi_guid_t env_guid = PARTITION_U_BOOT_ENVIRONMENT;
efi_guid_t type_guid;
@@ -82,7 +81,6 @@ static inline int mmc_offset_try_partition(const
char *str, int copy, s64 *val)
if (!memcmp(&env_guid, &type_guid, sizeof(efi_guid_t)))
break;
}
-#endif
}
/* round up to info.blksz */
If I remenber, I try this test with IS_ENABLED when I propose my patch
and I have compilation issue on next line
+ uuid_str_to_bin(info.type_guid, type_guid.b,
UUID_STR_FORMAT_GUID);
because "info.type_guid" don't exist in struct disk_partition
see ./include/part.h:59
struct disk_partition {
lbaint_t start; /* # of first block in partition */
...
#ifdef CONFIG_PARTITION_TYPE_GUID
char type_guid[UUID_STR_LEN + 1]; /* type GUID as string, if
exists */
#endif
...
};
Uh, which defconfig triggers this ?
Also, is there a way to deal with this failure without reinstating the ifdef
? Tom ?
It's likely on one of the platforms that disables EFI_LOADER, where this
ends up being a fail to build. I don't recall which, but I've seen it
before. So we probably don't end up converting this to a macro check.
Can you pick the 2/2 for starters ? It is a bugfix and applies cleanly,
so let's not block that one. I'll keep 1/2 in my queue and revisit it, I
see the failure in CI now.
