[PATCH v2 33/35] RFC: Revert "bloblist: Load the bloblist from the previous loader"

[Simon Glass]

Hi Tom,

On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 at 07:33, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 09, 2025 at 02:14:54PM -0700, Simon Glass 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 at chromium.org>
> > ---
> >
> > (no changes since v1)
> >
> >  common/bloblist.c  | 64 ++++++++++++++--------------------------------
> >  include/bloblist.h | 10 --------
> >  2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 55 deletions(-)
>
> We aren't reverting this change so if you plan to move this series out of
> your downstream fork you should start from that and stop posting it,
> that just leads to confusion.

Who is 'we', and start from what?

My goal with this series is to have something that actually boots on a
real board, so the bloblist changes are needed for that, particularly
as the 'vbe' board in the lab tests this on the hardware. I
deliberately put these two patches at the end of the series so you can
ignore them if you'd like.

But for now, as I understand it, there are no users of standard
passage in tree, so actually it would be fine to apply them.

Regards,
Simon