[PATCH v2 05/17] boot: Move showing of bootflows out of the command

[Simon Glass]

Hi Tom,

On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 at 17:45, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 06, 2025 at 05:30:23PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 at 14:15, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 01, 2025 at 03:26:30PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> > >
> > > > It is helpful in tests to be able to show the bootflow that is being
> > > > examined. Move show_bootflow() into boot/ and rename it.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > Changes in v2:
> > > > - Add a log_err() for an invalid state
> > > >
> > > >  boot/bootflow.c    | 57 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >  cmd/bootflow.c     | 68 ++--------------------------------------------
> > > >  include/bootflow.h |  9 ++++++
> > > >  3 files changed, 69 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-)
> > > [snip]
> > > > +     case BOOTFLOWST_COUNT:
> > > > +             log_err("Unexpected boot value of bootflow error %d",
> > > > +                      bflow->state);
> > >
> > > A small thing, checkpatch.pl catches that this isn't aligned with the '('
> > > here as it should be.
> >
> > OK. I'm unsure whether I really want this line anyway, since it
> > increases code size.
> >
> > >
> > > A larger thing, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but on reading the
> > > whole set of changes, this move + rename just means we're putting more
> > > info in the test output, and nothing else?
> >
> > It will also appear if you have CONFIG BOOTSTD_FULL and use 'bootflow
> > list' or 'bootflow scan -l'.
>
> But that should be the case before this patch as well, yes?

Yes, that's right. This is just moving the code into a place where it
can be used from tests.

Regards,
Simon