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

[Simon Glass]

Hi Tom,

On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 at 15:35, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> 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?

I have found myself in this function quite a few times, trying to work
out what it is up to, so I decided to add more debugging.

Anyway, would you like to just drop this patch, or something else?

Regards,
Simon