[PATCH v2 02/17] boot: Try all bootmeths on the final partition

[Tom Rini]

On Wed, Oct 08, 2025 at 10:20:43AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 at 08:57, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 08, 2025 at 08:45:54AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > Hi Tom,
> > >
> > > On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 at 08:34, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Oct 08, 2025 at 06:53:44AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > Hi Tom,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 at 12:13, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Oct 01, 2025 at 03:26:27PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > At present when one bootmeth fails on the final partition, the next
> > > > > > > bootmeth is not tried. Adjust the logic to go to the next bootmeth,
> > > > > > > which is the more natural behaviour.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My feedback on v1:
> > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20250331174144.GI93000@bill-the-cat/
> > > > > > was that we need to do a documentation change when doing a behavior
> > > > > > change. And I cannot recall if this change here is because of reports of
> > > > > > problems or not.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is a long time ago, but I think it might have been an
> > > > > inconsistency that I found myself. Otherwise I would probably have
> > > > > mentioned the person who reported it.
> > > > >
> > > > > The documentation already implies the logic in this patch, as I see
> > > > > it. But please suggest any changes.
> > > >
> > > > OK, I guess it's because the commit message doesn't explain the bug
> > > > clearly enough. Is this a correct description of the patch:
> > > >
> > > > At present, normally when one bootmeth fails on a partition, we move on
> > > > and try the next bootmeth. However, this was not the case for the final
> > > > partition due to a bug. Rework the logic so that all partitions are
> > > > treated the same.
> > >
> > > We can certainly say that if you like. It is fair to say that the
> > > algorithm is still being evolved as new things come up. Most of the
> > > behaviour has been driven by new tests that I've written. The global
> > > bootmeth is the biggest change since hunters were introduced, but I
> > > suspect there will be more in future.
> > >
> > > I'm heading out later today but can probably send v3 series (with the
> > > tweaks you've given) tomorrow. After that I'm not sure as I'm on
> > > holiday for two weeks.
> >
> > Peter's feedback should be addressed too for a v3 (and not just set
> > aside).
> 
> Is that the email just received, or something from a different series
> that I maybe missed from a while back?

It was yesterday:
https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/CALeDE9Ovemog2AGN_Li8Ju12QKHOC0D30V2=KG00f0KsQ5aPkg@mail.gmail.com/T/#m34f6e2c51fdfb275ba9930bfdc2ff349ee542b51

-- 
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/20251008/f3628e06/attachment.sig>