[PATCH v4] Improve handoff prepare on SoCFPGA

[Sune Brian]

On Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 10:54 AM Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Brian,
>
> On 2026-04-21T00:47:19, Sune Brian <briansune at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Improve handoff prepare on SoCFPGA
> >
> > There are some cases that the Python scripts
> > are run and the qts files are not replaced.
> >
> > This patch introduces:
> > 1) TMP folder for Python script
> > 2) TMP folder will automatically remove on exit
> > 3) If PY script fails, the replace will not conduct.
> > 4) Only when PY script passed the replace with keep
> > or without keep will be done via NEW HANDOFF_KEEP=xxx
> > 5) When keep is selected the old files are renamed to
> > xxx.h.handoff.<timestamp>
> >
> > As such this ensure qts folder h files are properly
> > updated.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Brian Sune <briansune at gmail.com>
> >
> > arch/arm/mach-socfpga/config.mk | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> >  1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
>
> Some thoughts though.
>

Hi Simon.

> We try to add a change log for each revision and use imperative
> present tense (Introduce a temp folder... rather than This patch
> introduces...). Spell out Python script rather than PY script, and
> reword as prose or a bullet list instead of 1), 2), ... You could also
> explain *why* the qts files were sometimes not being replaced - the

Because it is not fully traceable, git pull sometimes could introduce
some kind of unknown cases that even run make prepare will not update
the h files or the python script itself does not fully replace it from
first place.
So the easiest way to play safe in any possible condition is
[remove and replace] or simply [rename and create].

And I don't even fully confirm the cases, while this patch does improve
the previous .mk operation no matter if it is solving the unreplacing issue
or not.

So the motivation was explained from the title itself.

> motivation paragraph currently just says some cases without saying
> what goes wrong.
>
> The message says kept files are renamed to xxx.h.handoff.<timestamp>
> but the code uses .h.handoff_backup.<timestamp> - they should match.

That my mistake on the description, indeed it should be
.h.handoff_backup.<timestamp>

The idea just follows T.F. previous optional idea so I don't fully pay attention
to the wordings.

>
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-socfpga/config.mk b/arch/arm/mach-socfpga/config.mk
> > @@ -43,6 +43,27 @@ socfpga_g5_handoff_prepare:
> > +                     if [ -n '$${HANDOFF_KEEP+x}' ] && [ '$${HANDOFF_KEEP:-1}' != '0' ]; then \
>
> How about:
>

No I don't like this because you ignored my original idea on:
1) HANDOFF_KEEP= should run keep
because HANDOFF_KEEP cannot without = in .mk usage
2) When users use this flag, hence,  it is telling that they want to
keep the thingy.
So it makes no sense to =1 or =0 to further control it from first place.
This flag is inherently boolean logic.
But due to your suggestion I further elaborated this boolean flag to
support =0 or =1 or =x cases.

Sorry for this part, I will not change.

Cheers,
Brian

> if [ '$${HANDOFF_KEEP:-0}' != '0' ] ; then \
>
> Regards,
> Simon