On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 03:32:12PM +0100, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On Wed, 28 May 2025 at 15:25, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 06:32:02AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > This series adds a standard way of passing information between different > > > firmware phases. This already exists in U-Boot at a very basic level, in > > > the form of a bloblist containing an spl_handoff structure, but the intent > > > here is to define something useful across projects. > > > > > > The need for this is growing as firmware fragments into multiple binaries > > > each with its own purpose. Without any run-time connection, we must rely > > > on build-time settings which are brittle and painful to keep in sync. > > > > > > This feature is named 'standard passage' since the name is more unique > > > than many others that could be chosen, it is a passage in the sense that > > > information is flowing from one place to another and it is standard, > > > because that is what we want to create. > > > > > > The implementation is mostly a pointer to a bloblist in a register, with > > > an extra register to point to a devicetree, for more complex data. This > > > should cover all cases (small memory footprint as well as complex data > > > flow) and be easy enough to implement on all architectures. > > > > > > The emphasis is on enabling open communcation between binaries, not > > > enabling passage of secret, undocumented data, although this is possible > > > in a private environment. > > > > > > To try this out: > > > > > > $ ./scripts/build-qemu -a arm -rsx > > > > > > This will build and run QEMU for arm64 and you should see the standdard > > > passage working: > > > > > > Core: 49 devices, 13 uclasses, devicetree: passage > > > > > > This series is available at u-boot-dm/pass-working > > > > > > Changes in v5: > > > - Add RFC for test script > > > > And this is why I question if you are working in good faith. I've > > rejected this countless times. I'm still rejecting it. Stop including > > it. Point at the version you could easily be maintaining in the contrib > > repository where you have write access and no one will be telling you to > > not do something. People would even review the patches since it would be > > against mainline. > > I fully understand that you don't want the script and I'm only > including (as an RFC) so people can actually try this series out. I > didn't want to point to my tree as I thought that would annoy you. I > already went through why the contrib tree is not suitable for me.
So I have to take changes that I disagree with, but you can't work with a tree for your tooling where the community would be happy to provide feedback? That does not sound like compromise. Again, I have trouble believing that you are working in good faith to resolve the differences here. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
