On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 09:37:34AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Tom, > > If you like, you can apply the reverts first, since they break boards. > That should not be controversial, particularly as I explained at the > time that this was likely to cause problems. > > Then you can leave the discussion on OF_BLOBLIST open. > > Just a thought.
Absolutely not. Again, 70fe23859437ffe4efe0793423937d8b78ebf9d6 says: "Standard passage provides for a bloblist to be passed from one firmware phase to the next. That can be used to pass the devicetree along as well. Add an option to support this. Tests for this will be added as part of the Universal Payload work." And your new patch says exactly the same thing, but then: "Note: This is the correct way to deal with bloblist, since it allows boards to choose whether they want to use the devicetree from there, or not." and a large number of patchwork links. And after squashing the three commits together to see what's being changed, yes, you're rewriting a whole bunch of the logic without any explanation of why. It seems to fix 3 Chromebooks and isn't tested on anything else. This is why I'm saying it's unreviewable. So no, at the moment I'm inclined to wait for further reports of problems, and we're coming up on a year since 70fe23859437 was merged, before making any sort of last-minute change here. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
