[PATCH v4] Improve handoff prepare on SoCFPGA

[Sune Brian]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2026 at 10:24 AM Chee, Tien Fong
<tien.fong.chee at altera.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Brian,
>
>
> On 23/4/2026 6:29 am, Sune Brian wrote:
> > [CAUTION: This email is from outside your organization. Unless you trust the sender, do not click on links or open attachments as it may be a fraudulent email attempting to steal your information and/or compromise your computer.]
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2026 at 6:10 AM Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
> >> Hi Brian,
> >>
> >> On Wed, 22 Apr 2026 at 15:13, Sune Brian <briansune at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> 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.
> >> That's fine...note that you have my review tag, so you can add that to
> >> a new version, if you do one.
> >>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Brian
> >>>
> >>>> if [ '$${HANDOFF_KEEP:-0}' != '0' ] ; then \
> > Hi Simon,
> >
> > V5 has been released.
> > Due to T.F. "please to use your check condition"
> >
> > Logically speaking.
> >
> > The check condition now has become:
> >
> > A person has no intention to use the restroom.
> > But that person intentionally walk in front of the restroom door and
> > speak out not going to use the restroom,
> > Then that person simply goes back to where he came from and does
> > not even enter the restroom.
> >
> > What a wonderful world =]
>
> Just to clarify my earlier comments, the intent wasn’t to force a
> particular approach,
>
> but to share review suggestions and ensure the commit message and
> behavior are clear for future readers.
>
> On the shell test, I had meant: either your earlier semantics or Simon’s

Hi T.F.,

Interesting, "simplified one"  so when users use > make + keep flag
where flag label is self explained still adding extra =0 or =1 is considered
as simplified.

No one forced me, while you used "please" so no worries, just pleasure for me
to copy and paste w/o further thinking is even easy for me. Love to do so.

Thanks,
Brian

> simplified one was fine, as long as the behavior is clear for reviewers
>
> I appreciate you incorporating the parts you agreed with.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Tien Fong
>
>