[PATCH v4] Improve handoff prepare on SoCFPGA

[Simon Glass]

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 \
Regards,
Simon