[PATCH 00/10] efi: Move some efi-loader code into a new shared dir

[Mark Kettenis]

> Date: Fri, 23 May 2025 10:49:09 -0600
> From: Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com>
> 
> On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 05:36:52PM +0100, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Heinrich,
> > 
> > On Fri, May 23, 2025, 15:19 Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk at gmx.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 23.05.25 15:06, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > Some functions provided in lib/efi_loader are actually useful for the
> > > > app as well. This series refactors the Kconfig and directories a little
> > > > so that code is easier to share.
> > > >
> > > > As a starting point, it moves some filename and device-path functions to
> > > > the new directory.
> > > >
> > > > The next step would be to move device-path code over, but this will need
> > > > some discussion.
> > >
> > > Hello Simon,
> > >
> > > Overall the ideas in this series look fine to me. But this series does
> > > not apply to origin/next.
> > >
> > > Applying: efi_loader: Separate device path into its own header
> > > Patch failed at 0001 efi_loader: Separate device path into its own header
> > > error: patch failed: cmd/efidebug.c:8
> > > error: cmd/efidebug.c: patch does not apply
> > > error: patch failed: include/efi_loader.h:967
> > > error: include/efi_loader.h: patch does not apply
> > > error: patch failed: lib/efi_loader/efi_bootmgr.c:12
> > > error: lib/efi_loader/efi_bootmgr.c: patch does not apply
> > > error: patch failed: lib/efi_loader/efi_device_path.c:10
> > > error: lib/efi_loader/efi_device_path.c: patch does not apply
> > > error: patch failed: lib/efi_loader/efi_helper.c:6
> > > error: lib/efi_loader/efi_helper.c: patch does not apply
> > >
> > > Please, resend the series based on origin/next.
> > >
> > > Patches that are not based on upstream U-Boot cannot be reviewed via
> > > this mailing list.
> > 
> > The app is quite behind in Tom's tree due to rejected series.
> 
> It was not "Rejected", it was "Changes Requested", please stop
> mis-representing things.
> 
> > In fact
> > the app is pretty limited on x86 and there is no Arm app at all.
> > 
> > My current plan is to move forward and eventually Tom might take it
> > via a pull request.
> > 
> > Do you have any other ideas?
> > 
> > Perhaps this is something we could put on the agenda for a future call.
> 
> There's nothing to discuss in a future call as step one is "post patches
> against mainline".

I agree with Tom here.  I did look at some of the patches in this
series and now that I've learnt it doesn't even apply on top of
mainline it feels like I've wasted my time.