From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from phobos.denx.de (phobos.denx.de [85.214.62.61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AD1DC7115B for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2025 08:51:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from h2850616.stratoserver.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by phobos.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6A6482AA4; Thu, 26 Jun 2025 10:51:32 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=ti.com Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="q9VnQQVJ"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by phobos.denx.de (Postfix, from userid 109) id 5311182C4C; Thu, 26 Jun 2025 10:51:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from lelvem-ot01.ext.ti.com (lelvem-ot01.ext.ti.com [198.47.23.234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by phobos.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F04B18006D for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2025 10:51:21 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=ti.com Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=m-shah@ti.com Received: from lelvem-sh02.itg.ti.com ([10.180.78.226]) by lelvem-ot01.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 55Q8pELd1693248; Thu, 26 Jun 2025 03:51:14 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1750927875; bh=LM5xeaeABmqIhmXzm2NamDG+cHqNB2WwX9uWtTe4Fyc=; h=Date:Subject:From:To:CC:References:In-Reply-To; b=q9VnQQVJdlrzBqjN3wgikv73XCXZLvbE4NXJueuAuam6u8nUm0Q3LUYKg0MKseCQm 4xxL9gqLrmfciDfzXikIkRR8UlsFD/AMMOhUCvst1U8UfwXsH9mVAiIwk8SQmwkTpS 20JVVNpX5uO8VooIArR/FyVIk65RdQS+EaU5EOIo= Received: from DFLE112.ent.ti.com (dfle112.ent.ti.com [10.64.6.33]) by lelvem-sh02.itg.ti.com (8.18.1/8.18.1) with ESMTPS id 55Q8pE3S3474785 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 26 Jun 2025 03:51:14 -0500 Received: from DFLE115.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.36) by DFLE112.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2507.55; Thu, 26 Jun 2025 03:51:14 -0500 Received: from lelvem-mr06.itg.ti.com (10.180.75.8) by DFLE115.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2507.55 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 26 Jun 2025 03:51:14 -0500 Received: from [172.24.227.136] (moteen-ubuntu-desk.dhcp.ti.com [172.24.227.136] (may be forged)) by lelvem-mr06.itg.ti.com (8.18.1/8.18.1) with ESMTP id 55Q8pBjc722179; Thu, 26 Jun 2025 03:51:12 -0500 Message-ID: <32e126ee-1c0e-4db6-aecd-601ffae37265@ti.com> Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2025 14:21:10 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2 v2] Propagate bootph-all and bootph-some-ram property to all supernodes From: Moteen Shah To: , Tom Rini CC: , , , , , , References: <20250516114148.3862114-1-m-shah@ti.com> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-C2ProcessedOrg: 333ef613-75bf-4e12-a4b1-8e3623f5dcea X-BeenThere: u-boot@lists.denx.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Id: U-Boot discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de Sender: "U-Boot" X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.103.8 at phobos.denx.de X-Virus-Status: Clean Hey Tom, Just wanted to have a check on the patch series. Is there any change expected on this or is it good to go? Regards, Moteen On 09/06/25 11:52, Moteen Shah wrote: > Hello all, > > On 16/05/25 17:11, Moteen Shah wrote: >> In the U-Boot pre-relocation stage, if the parent node lacks >> bootph-all/bootph-some-ram property and the driver lacks a pre-reloc >> flag, all of its subsequent subnodes gets skipped over from driver >> binding—even if they have a bootph* property. >> >> This series addresses the issue by scanning through all the nodes during >> build time and propagating the applicable  property to all of its >> supernode. >> >> Changes since v1: >> - Carry reviewed-by from Simon >> - Add a subnode-4 in testcase >> - Change commit message and comments in control.py >> >> Link to v1: >> https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20250512115028.1783305-1-m-shah@ti.com/ >> >> Moteen Shah (2): >>    tools: binman: control.py: Propagate bootph-all/bootph-some-ram >> properties to supernodes >>    tools: binman: ftest.py: Add testcase for bootph-* propagation >> >>   tools/binman/control.py               | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>   tools/binman/ftest.py                 | 24 ++++++++++++ >>   tools/binman/test/347_bootph_prop.dts | 21 +++++++++++ >>   3 files changed, 99 insertions(+) >>   create mode 100644 tools/binman/test/347_bootph_prop.dts >> > > A gentle ping on this. Does this series requires any further changes? > > Regards, > Moteen >