On Tue, Oct 07, 2025 at 09:14:29AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 at 07:50, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 07, 2025 at 05:13:55AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 at 17:45, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 06, 2025 at 05:30:23PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 at 14:15, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 01, 2025 at 03:26:30PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is helpful in tests to be able to show the bootflow that is > > > > > > > being > > > > > > > examined. Move show_bootflow() into boot/ and rename it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <[email protected]> > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v2: > > > > > > > - Add a log_err() for an invalid state > > > > > > > > > > > > > > boot/bootflow.c | 57 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > > cmd/bootflow.c | 68 > > > > > > > ++-------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > include/bootflow.h | 9 ++++++ > > > > > > > 3 files changed, 69 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-) > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > + case BOOTFLOWST_COUNT: > > > > > > > + log_err("Unexpected boot value of bootflow error > > > > > > > %d", > > > > > > > + bflow->state); > > > > > > > > > > > > A small thing, checkpatch.pl catches that this isn't aligned with > > > > > > the '(' > > > > > > here as it should be. > > > > > > > > > > OK. I'm unsure whether I really want this line anyway, since it > > > > > increases code size. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A larger thing, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but on reading > > > > > > the > > > > > > whole set of changes, this move + rename just means we're putting > > > > > > more > > > > > > info in the test output, and nothing else? > > > > > > > > > > It will also appear if you have CONFIG BOOTSTD_FULL and use 'bootflow > > > > > list' or 'bootflow scan -l'. > > > > > > > > But that should be the case before this patch as well, yes? > > > > > > Yes, that's right. This is just moving the code into a place where it > > > can be used from tests. > > > > But it's not being used from tests, with this series. > > Please see this one: 'boot: Add a new test for global bootmeths'
Yes, it calls the function, but doesn't seem to do anything with that, especially considering what the test does before these patches. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
