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

[Tom Rini]

On Tue, Oct 07, 2025 at 09:14:29AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 at 07:50, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 07, 2025 at 05:13:55AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > But it's not being used from tests, with this series.
> 
> Please see this one: 'boot: Add a new test for global bootmeths'

Yes, it calls the function, but doesn't seem to do anything with that,
especially considering what the test does before these patches.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20251007/fdffbf89/attachment.sig>