On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 08:46:31AM -0600, Tom Rini wrote: > On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 09:10:47AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: [snip] > > Again, back to this thread, if you want me to migrate things, consider > > applying the sunxi patches as I have described above. I will then look > > at the next target for bootstd. But while you hold this up, I cannot > > move forward with more bootstd migration. It doesn't seem that much to > > ask. > > I will take another look at what's still relevant. But I believe it's > still blocked on the fact that it changes behavior and breaks users.
In details: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/[email protected]/ Now that the underlying BLK problem is resolved, this can just be dropped I believe. Removing the BLK dependency from BOOTSTD can happen when you're supporting a flow that lacks a BLK device entirely. This would be another reminder as to why putting unrelated changes in a series is a problem. https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/[email protected]/ This is fine. https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/[email protected]/ This is not fine. This is also not a sunxi problem. It means that we should drop bootmgr from rockchip, where the conversion has already taken place, and would need to drop it from future conversion too. Neither of which are desirable changes. This patch in particular is where we have the note: "Yes, the introduction of boot standard changed the boot order and specifically deprioritizing scripts is unexpected." Which should have had more attention than it did. This is the thread that to me spelled out in details where the conversions are now blocked. We changed behavior and that in turn breaks users that have come to rely on ordering. https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/[email protected]/ Is an alternative to the above which then turned in to a discussion that I would very briefly summarize as "no discussions were had between stakeholders before integrating efi bootmgr with bootstd". https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/[email protected]/ This is fine, but only relevant once migration happens. https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/[email protected]/ If Andre is fine with this, this is fine. https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/[email protected]/ This is a generic bugfix. I will take this to next today. https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/[email protected]/ If Andre is fine with this, this is fine. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
