Hi Heinrich, On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 at 06:11, Heinrich Schuchardt <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 07.01.25 13:15, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Heinrich, > > > > On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 at 10:00, Heinrich Schuchardt <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> On 06.01.25 15:47, Simon Glass wrote: > >>> This test was hamstrung in code review so this series is an attempt to > >>> complete the intended functionality: > >>> > >>> - Check memory allocations look correct > >>> - Check that exit-boot-services removes active-DMA devices > >>> - Check that the bootflow is still present after testapp finishes > >>> > >>> The EFI functionality duplicates bootm_announce_and_cleanup() and still > >>> uses the defunct board_quiesce_devices() so a nice cleanup would be to > >>> call the bootm function instead, with suitable modifications. That would > >>> allow bootstage to work too. > >>> > >>> This series is based on sjg/master since the EFI logging was rejected so > >>> far. > >> > >> Yes, it was rejected because a solution at the lib/log.c level would be > >> more generic. > > > > As I mentioned, that idea isn't suitable for programmatic use. > > What can be done with show_addr("mem", rec->memory); that log_debug() > does not offer or which you could not do with a new log function in > lib/log.c that takes variadic arguments?
There are asserts in [1], for example. How do you propose to handle that? See [2] for my previous explanation, quoted here: > CONFIG_LOG with a bloblist option would be a great idea, but it's hard > to programmatically scan text...plus only the external call sites are > actually logged. Also see the discussion on the original patch [3]. There was also your reply at [4], but I think you missed that this is intended for use in unit tests (i.e. with ut_assert()). You also requested that this be generalised, rather than being EFI-loader-specific. I have no objection to that, but don't have a use case for it yet, so have deferred that to later. It's a fairly simple change, if/when needed. If the series was not NAKed, I'd be happy to do it now. > > > >> > >> Tom suggested not to send patches that are for private enjoyment to the > >> mailing list. > > > > My contributions to U-Boot are only ever about private enjoyment :-) > > > > Do you have any comments on the patches? Regards, Simon [1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/[email protected]/ [2] https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/CAFLszTjxOE_037+kR0jgdax80sBombYo_k0YgiuVnP=kzco...@mail.gmail.com/ [3] https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/CAC_iWjKtaN54B98OKbkoXkC_GmKJ=x+M4=uy_o6rosopzad...@mail.gmail.com/ [4] https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/[email protected]/
