[U-Boot] [PATCH 3/7] common: Implement A/B metadata

[Eugeniu Rosca]

Hi Simon, Igor, Ruslan,

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 4:05 AM Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
> Hi Ruslan,
>
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 at 12:57, Ruslan Trofymenko
> <ruslan.trofymenko at linaro.org> 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

Many thanks,
Eugeniu.