[PATCH v4 3/4] boot: Add more debugging to iter_incr()

[Tom Rini]

On Fri, Oct 10, 2025 at 11:36:10AM +0100, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 at 18:30, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 09, 2025 at 03:29:54AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> >
> > > This function is the core of the bootstd iteration. Add some debugging
> > > for the decisions it makes along the way, to make it easier to track
> > > what is going on.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > (no changes since v1)
> > >
> > >  boot/bootflow.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++----
> > >  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/boot/bootflow.c b/boot/bootflow.c
> > > index 78df09f369d..de69e27bec7 100644
> > > --- a/boot/bootflow.c
> > > +++ b/boot/bootflow.c
> > > @@ -193,8 +193,10 @@ static int iter_incr(struct bootflow_iter *iter)
> > >       log_debug("entry: err=%d\n", iter->err);
> > >       global = iter->doing_global;
> > >
> > > -     if (iter->err == BF_NO_MORE_DEVICES)
> > > +     if (iter->err == BF_NO_MORE_DEVICES) {
> > > +             log_debug("-> err: no more devices1\n");
> > >               return BF_NO_MORE_DEVICES;
> > > +     }
> >
> > Thinking more about what I said in the previous iteration about git
> > blame history, ones like this should be log_msg_ret (the history on
> > "when did the test for == BF_NO_MORE_DEVICES come from is unchanged, but
> > now you can have debug statements when enabled).
> 
> Yes we can add that as well, but I still want to have the log_debug()
> as this doesn't require enabling CONFIG_LOG_ERROR_RETURN. That feature
> produces a lot of output even in normal operation since it shows
> errors dealt with by higher level code. It is really only designed to
> find the source of a particular error when you are stuck.
> 
> >
> > [snip]
> > > @@ -228,11 +234,15 @@ static int iter_incr(struct bootflow_iter *iter)
> > >
> > >       if (iter->err != BF_NO_MORE_PARTS) {
> > >               /* ...select next partition  */
> > > -             if (++iter->part <= iter->max_part)
> > > +             if (++iter->part <= iter->max_part) {
> > > +                     log_debug("-> next partition %d max %d\n", iter->part,
> > > +                               iter->max_part);
> > >                       return 0;
> > > +             }
> >
> > Shouldn't this be a debug message instead in the caller?
> 
> I am trying to log_debug() every exit from this function...so you can
> see the entry and then which path it took.
> 
> >
> > [snip]
> > > @@ -326,8 +336,13 @@ static int iter_incr(struct bootflow_iter *iter)
> > >       }
> > >
> > >       /* if there are no more bootdevs, give up */
> > > -     if (ret)
> > > +     if (ret) {
> > > +             log_debug("-> no more bootdevs\n");
> > >               return log_msg_ret("incr", BF_NO_MORE_DEVICES);
> > > +     }
> >
> > Then do we actually need both a log_debug and a log_msg_ret?
> 
> Please see above.

I guess my question is, but why? Is this something that's going to be
debugged frequently? Why doesn't every function have meaningful text
string log_debug messages, just in case? And then why bother with
log_msg_ret at all?

-- 
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/20251010/823d3d57/attachment.sig>