[...] > > > >> --- > > > >> > > > >> lib/fdtdec.c | 12 ++++++++++-- > > > >> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > >> > > > >> diff --git a/lib/fdtdec.c b/lib/fdtdec.c > > > >> index b2c59ab3818..b141244e3b9 100644 > > > >> --- a/lib/fdtdec.c > > > >> +++ b/lib/fdtdec.c > > > >> @@ -1669,8 +1669,16 @@ int fdtdec_setup(void) > > > >> { > > > >> int ret = -ENOENT; > > > >> > > > >> - /* If allowing a bloblist, check that first */ > > > >> - if (CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(BLOBLIST)) { > > > >> + /* > > > >> + * If allowing a bloblist, check that first. This would be > > > >> better > > > >> + * handled with an OF_BLOBLIST Kconfig, but that caused far > > > >> too much > > > >> + * argument, so add a hack here, used e.g. by chromebook_coral > > > > > > > > I am a bit confused by this comment - It means you will not use > > > > OF_BLOBLIST, > > > > but actually you are using it below. Is it a typo? > > > > > > Basically it would be cleaner to have a separate, phase-specific > > > Kconfig control as to whether the DT can come from the bloblist (I > > > can't remember the Kconfig name I suggested, nor the patch as it was > > > last year sometime). But for now I am adding this hack to get a few > > > boards working again. > > > > I am a bit confused. > > First of all the comment is innapropriate. We went through a lengthy > > discussion on BLOBLIST/OF_BLOSLIST etc and, even Tom chimed in and we > > made up our minds. Why are you adding this comment now? Why do code > > comments have to illustrate your personal opinion -- which was > > rejected? > > I'm sorry for the tone of the comment. I am not trying to offend > anyone here and I'm happy to change the language.
Yes please a comment explaining why that piece of code is there is far more intuitive. > As I probably > mentioned at the time, my accepted patch breaks my workflow and > several boards. I hope you can understand how frustrating that sort of > thing can be. Yes, I do and I am fine with a short-term patch that fixes issues, as long as its not too intrusive. There is a very thin line between quick and dirty fixes to spaghetti unreadable code. But we should have comments and/or commit messages indicating that this needs a proper fix > Also, now that I have my lab back up and running and I > would like these boards to work again on mainline! > > > > > Grepping for OF_BLOBLIST, I can't find any matches, so is the above if a > > typo? > > Remember, it was a patch you rejected :-) I don't maintain any of that. I only gave some feedback along the lines of "bloblist was designed to be auto-discoverable, I don't see how adding an explicit Kconfig helps". IIRC we eventually followed what Tom suggested. In any case, the amount of bike-shedding in the topic is too much. Do you mind explaining the problem in your workflow again? Perhaps we can find a solution that is integrated in bloblist_maybe_init() instead of injecting ifs on when a bloblist should or should not be searched for all over the place. Regards /Ilias > > Regards, > Simon > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > /Ilias > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> + * The necessary test is whether the previous stage passed a > > > >> bloblist, > > > >> + * not whether this one creates one. > > > >> + */ > > > >> + if (CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(OF_BLOBLIST) && > > > >> + (spl_prev_phase() != PHASE_TPL || > > > >> + !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_TPL_BLOBLIST))) { > > > >> ret = bloblist_maybe_init(); > > > >> if (!ret) { > > > >> gd->fdt_blob = > > > >> bloblist_find(BLOBLISTT_CONTROL_FDT, 0); > > > >> -- > > > >> 2.34.1 > > > >> > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Raymond > > > > > > Regards, > > > Simon