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

[Simon Glass]

-trimming cc

Hi Tom,

On Fri, 23 May 2025 at 17:49, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

That seems like a distinction without a difference. For example, [1]
is marked as 'changes requested' but the abuf comment on patch 1 looks
like a rejection to me.

>
> > 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".

Well, you keep bringing it up, so it seems that you are unhappy with
it. An alternative to talking about it, if you prefer, is to accept
the status quo. But either way, it doesn't seem helpful to mention the
same issue on so many threads.

Regards,
Simon

>
> --
> Tom

[1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?series=454989