Re: [PATCH v3 29/31] RFC: Revert "bloblist: Load the bloblist from the previous loader"

[Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1699 bytes --]

On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 11:50:14AM -0400, Raymond Mao wrote:
> Hi Simon,
> 
> 
> On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 at 11:36, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > The logic of this has become too confusing.
> >
> > The primary issue with the patch is that U-Boot needs to set up a
> > bloblist in the first phase where BLOBLIST is enabled. Subsequent
> > phases can then use that bloblist.
> >
> > But the first phase of U-Boot cannot assume that one exists.
> >
> > Reverting this commit seems like a better starting point for getting
> > things working for all use-cases.
> >
> > Note: The work to tidy this up is apparently underway. For this series,
> > a revert is the easiest path.
> >
> > This reverts commit 66131310d8ff1ba228f989b41bd8812f43be41c3.
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/CAPnjgZ3hMHtiH=f5ZKXNniOfV_-vFryq1Gn7QZ5hKU8Wjo8igw@mail.gmail.com/
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> > ---
> >
> > (no changes since v1)
> >
> 
> Is this same as something we discussed in the thread below?
> https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20250205015606.2686149-29-sjg@chromium.org/
> 
> I am a bit confused since I think we had agreed that it should not be reverted.

Yes, it is extremely frustrating to have posted both this:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?series=450425&state=*
as the first pass at doing what was agreed on the path forward while
also posting this thread which cannot be against either next nor next
with the above applied and so isn't worth anyone elses time. I suspect
this thread also includes various rockchip patches that were requested
to be broken out and posted by themselves instead.

-- 
Tom

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