Hi Mark, Tom, On Fri, 23 May 2025 at 18:12, Mark Kettenis <mark.kette...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > > > Date: Fri, 23 May 2025 10:49:09 -0600 > > From: Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> > > > > On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 05:36:52PM +0100, Simon Glass wrote: > > > Hi Heinrich, > > > > > > On Fri, May 23, 2025, 15:19 Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.g...@gmx.de> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On 23.05.25 15:06, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > Some functions provided in lib/efi_loader are actually useful for the > > > > > app as well. This series refactors the Kconfig and directories a > > > > > little > > > > > so that code is easier to share. > > > > > > > > > > As a starting point, it moves some filename and device-path functions > > > > > to > > > > > the new directory. > > > > > > > > > > The next step would be to move device-path code over, but this will > > > > > need > > > > > some discussion. > > > > > > > > Hello Simon, > > > > > > > > Overall the ideas in this series look fine to me. But this series does > > > > not apply to origin/next. > > > > > > > > Applying: efi_loader: Separate device path into its own header > > > > Patch failed at 0001 efi_loader: Separate device path into its own > > > > header > > > > error: patch failed: cmd/efidebug.c:8 > > > > error: cmd/efidebug.c: patch does not apply > > > > error: patch failed: include/efi_loader.h:967 > > > > error: include/efi_loader.h: patch does not apply > > > > error: patch failed: lib/efi_loader/efi_bootmgr.c:12 > > > > error: lib/efi_loader/efi_bootmgr.c: patch does not apply > > > > error: patch failed: lib/efi_loader/efi_device_path.c:10 > > > > error: lib/efi_loader/efi_device_path.c: patch does not apply > > > > error: patch failed: lib/efi_loader/efi_helper.c:6 > > > > error: lib/efi_loader/efi_helper.c: patch does not apply > > > > > > > > Please, resend the series based on origin/next. > > > > > > > > Patches that are not based on upstream U-Boot cannot be reviewed via > > > > this mailing list. > > > > > > The app is quite behind in Tom's tree due to rejected series. > > > > It was not "Rejected", it was "Changes Requested", please stop > > mis-representing things. > > > > > In fact > > > the app is pretty limited on x86 and there is no Arm app at all. > > > > > > My current plan is to move forward and eventually Tom might take it > > > via a pull request. > > > > > > Do you have any other ideas? > > > > > > Perhaps this is something we could put on the agenda for a future call. > > > > There's nothing to discuss in a future call as step one is "post patches > > against mainline". > > I agree with Tom here. I did look at some of the patches in this > series and now that I've learnt it doesn't even apply on top of > mainline it feels like I've wasted my time.
There is a base commit in the cover letter, so you could look at that if you like. I plan to apply this series at some point, so any review is not a waste of time. I do respond to review feedback. Regards, Simon
