[PATCH v6] Improve handoff prepare on SoCFPGA

[Sune Brian]

On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 10:04 PM Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Brian,
>
> On 2026-04-23T04:28:24, Sune Brian <briansune at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Improve handoff prepare on SoCFPGA
> >
> > Ensure qts folder header files are properly updated by isolating
> > the Python execution environment. This prevents partial or failed
> > script runs from corrupting the target directory.
> >
> > Changelog v5 -> v6:
> >  - Clean HANDOFF_KEEP comments.
> >
> > Changelog v4 -> v5:
> >  - Change HANDOFF_KEEP condition to if [ '$${HANDOFF_KEEP:-0}' != '0' ]
> >  - Add HANDOFF_KEEP and HANDOFF_PATH comments in config.mk
> >
> > Changes:
> >  - Implement a temp folder for Python script execution.
> >  - Clean temp folder automatically despite execution failures.
> >  - Gate the file replacement process on the successful exit of
> >    the Python scripts.
> >  - Execute the replacement (with or without keep) only upon script
> >    success via the NEW HANDOFF_KEEP=xxx variable.
> > [...]
> >
> > arch/arm/mach-socfpga/config.mk | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> >  1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>


Dear Simon,

B.C. the server is down and I don't expect Google to have an auto fail
mailing recovery.

> I see 6 copies of this v6 patch in patchwork, so I wonder if I got the
> right one?

I will try to respond to this email as politely as possible.
Please reference from "patchwork.ozlabs.org" list.

> The per-version changelogs belong below the '---' separator, not in
> the commit body. Also U-Boot convention is 'Changes in vN:' rather
> than 'Changelog vN -> vN+1:'.
>
> You could try using 'patman' which will get this right for you automatically:
>
> https://docs.u-boot.org/en/latest/develop/patman.html
>

1) I only do basic software
2) I used ./script/checkpatch.pl There are no errors, warnings etc.
3) There is nothing to do with the patch itself either the software
nor the file itself.
4) I am not too familiar with patman
5) There are many better things to do rather than complaining about
the patch headers.

So forgive me I really don't give a damn on whatever the header requirements.
If you feel this is not passing the patch standard simply reject or
label all patches to
"Changes Requested".

With all respect,
Brian

>
> Regards,
> Simon