Hi Simon, thank you for the extensive review of the series. Meanwhile v2 had already been sent and Tom has already picked it into 'next'. Apart from one issue (see below) I've addressed all correctness issues you have pointed out in a follow up series which I have sent now.
On Mon, Sep 28, 2026 at 09:13:53AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > On 2026-08-23T19:12:43, Daniel Golle <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The first in-tree consumer, a bootmeth for OpenWrt-style FIT firmware, will > > follow as a separate series. > > When that comes, will you be able to add a test for the bootmeth? Yes. I've got that planned but it's not done yet. Compared to imagemap and the dm-verity integration (which are both covered by unit tests) the bootmeth by itself also isn't that spectacular ;) > > boot: fit: support on-demand loading in fit_image_load() > > Related: patch 6 adds a struct udevice *imagemap field to both struct > bootm_info and struct bootm_headers, but nothing in this series sets > either outside the tests. The FIT hook is dead code in the built tree. You are right, that is the gap the bootmeth series is going to close, and until it lands the integration is carried on the strength of out-of-tree testing, which is not a good place for it to sit. I would rather fix that by getting the consumer in than by adding a synthetic caller. Cheers Daniel
