[PATCH 28/29] Revert "bloblist: Load the bloblist from the previous loader"

[Simon Glass]

Hi Tom,

On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 at 09:23, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 08:41:09AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Raymond,
> >
> > On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 at 08:25, Raymond Mao <raymond.mao at linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > +CC Ilias,
> > >
> > > Hi Simon,
> > >
> > > On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 at 20:57, Simon Glass <sjg at 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.
> > > >
> > > > This reverts commit 66131310d8ff1ba228f989b41bd8812f43be41c3.
> > > >
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/CAPnjgZ3hMHtiH=f5ZKXNniOfV_-vFryq1Gn7QZ5hKU8Wjo8igw@mail.gmail.com/
> > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > >
> > > If my understanding is correct, you want to add some logic to control
> > > when the U-Boot should or should not get the bloblist from the
> > > existing register argument.
> > > But xferlist_from_boot_arg() should be called when a valid register
> > > argument is there, I didn't see this in your patch.
> > > Maybe you plan to do this with other patch series, but simply
> > > reverting this results in a breaking of handoff policy and the
> > > firmware handoff won't work.
> >
> > Yes, I certainly did not want to revert it, but the current code is
> > too hard to understand and I did not look at it at the time it went
> > in. I've had three tries at working with what you have here, but each
> > turns to spaghetti.
> >
> > I would like to build on this and get something running in CI which
> > uses standard passage. As Tom suggests, perhaps we should disconnect
> > bloblist and standard passage?
> >
> > On the CI point, is there a board we could add that uses the
> > xferlist_from_boot_arg() call?
>
> Yes: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?series=442824

OK, so is that 'vexpress_ca9x4' in CI?

Assuming those patches are going in, it's all the more important that
we apply this revert and tidy things up quickly.

Regards,
Simon