Re: [PATCH v4 09/25] efi_loader: Use the enum for memory type

[Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1548 bytes --]

On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 09:17:43AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Heinrich,
> 
> On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 at 08:53, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Heinrich,
> >
> > On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 at 07:38, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk@gmx.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 01.12.24 16:24, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > Rather than an integer, it is better to use the enum provided, when
> > > > referring to an EFI memory-type. Update existing uses.
> > > >
> > > > Call the value 'mem_type' consistently. Fix up one instance of
> > > > upper-case hex.
> > > >
> > > > Fix up the calls in struct efi_boot_services so that they use the same
> > > > enum, adding the missing parameter names and enum efi_allocate_type.
> > > >
> > > > While we are here, rename the 'memory' parameter to 'memoryp' so that it
> > > > is clear it is a return value.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> > >
> > > Simon, I have no clue why you keep ignoring reviews.
> > > This is just annoying and won't lead to merging patches.
> >
> > I got your feedback on [1] and incorporated it in v2 onwards. Did you notice?
> >
> > >
> > > NAK
> 
> It has been a week and I have not had any response on this. Does that
> mean you are OK with the patch now?

I'm unclear what part of NAK implies that Heinrich is OK with this
patch? I believe not since part of it was to not rename "memory" to
"memoryp" and you're calling out doing that still. But I suspect you'll
just keep this in your fork all the same.

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 659 bytes --]