From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eugeniu Rosca Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2019 18:51:46 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 3/7] common: Implement A/B metadata In-Reply-To: References: <1543348642-31045-1-git-send-email-ruslan.trofymenko@linaro.org> <1543348642-31045-4-git-send-email-ruslan.trofymenko@linaro.org> Message-ID: <20190407165146.GA29940@x230> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hi Simon, Igor, All, On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 07:55:30PM +0200, Eugeniu Rosca wrote: > Hi Simon, Igor, Ruslan, > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 4:05 AM Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Ruslan, > > > > On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 at 12:57, Ruslan Trofymenko > > wrote: > > > > [..] > > > +struct android_bootloader_message { > > > > How about andr_bl_msg ? Similarly below > > Simon, I am currently working on a new U-Boot command which requires > the same AOSP header in-tree. Since the v4 of the whole "A/B support" > series is still WIP by Igor (Ruslan?), may I kindly ask you whether > you feel strong about these specific header and struct renames? We've > recently got some feedback from Tom [1] that it should be OK to keep > the out-of-tree headers untouched. My main motivation is 1) minimizing > the effort of updating this specific header from upstream and 2) using > the U-Boot-compliant header/struct names in my WIP changes. I am open > minded if the original filename is not preserved, but the struct > renames imply some amount of changes in the comments (see [2]). Also, > renaming the structs will imply parsing and verifying the comments > each time the header is updated. It's this kind of tiny bit of > integration effort which you always want to avoid, since it doesn't > require any creativity and can't be automated easily. I am looking > forward for your feedback. > > Dear Igor, Ruslan, > > How should we handle the import of > bootloader_message/include/bootloader_message/bootloader_message.h ? > If it takes more time for you to submit the next version of A/B > support, would it be fine for you if I do the importing of the header > myself along with my other patches which depend on it? > > [1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1044158/#2129429 > [2] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1044158/#2109299 Apologize for making another iteration on this, but what about below solution WRT struct renames upon importing bootloader_message.h in-tree. The following typedef statements (placed in the imported header) would allow keeping the original structures and the associated comments untouched (hence speeding up the updates from the source), while U-Boot would use use the new/rightmost types mirroring the upstream ones. typedef struct bootloader_message andr_bl_msg; typedef struct bootloader_message_ab andr_bl_msg_ab; typedef struct bootloader_control andr_bl_control; > > Many thanks, > Eugeniu.