On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 03:32:48PM +0100, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> On Tue, 27 May 2025 at 14:32, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 06:40:34AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> >
> > > This is quite long at present. Rename it so that fixes better with the
> > > bootstd naming.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>
> >
> > First of all, sigh, this doesn't apply to mainline. After the last few
> > days, that starts to feel like bad faith on your part. Second, I feel
> > like this reduces code clarity. I'm not rejecting the concept, but
> > shorten + document doesn't feel as useful as "document". Finally, what
> > "bootstd naming" does this better fit with?
>
> Firstly, the conflicts are trivial to resolve, if you would like to
> take this patch, since the conflicting code is not in your tree. This
> relates to the booti and bootz features, since you wanted it done a
> different way, reverting an entire series ("Precursor series for
> supporting read_all() in extlinux / PXE") rather than accept a bugfix.
> I'm happy to send a PR once I get to the point where you are happy
> with my bootz/booti fixes, but I do want to work on that
> incrementally.There should be zero conflicts. You keep posting things based on top of your growing mountain of incompatible changes and expecting others to deal with your problem. Stop that. > The bootstd naming just means that flags start with a BOOTxx prefix. I > am trying to be consistent with this, as is done in other boot*.h > header files. This variable relates to bootm, so I'd like it to have a > BOOTM prefix. BOOTM_STATE has a BOOTM prefix. BOOTMS seems needlessly short and less not more clear about what it is. We do not live in a world where byte count of source code matters nor where everything must wrap in 80 x 24. A few characters over or a few more lines to provide clarity is very much worth it. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
