Hi Tom, On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 at 12:45, Simon Glass <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 at 09:51, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 09:37:34AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > If you like, you can apply the reverts first, since they break boards. > > > That should not be controversial, particularly as I explained at the > > > time that this was likely to cause problems. > > > > > > Then you can leave the discussion on OF_BLOBLIST open. > > > > > > Just a thought. > > > > Absolutely not. Again, 70fe23859437ffe4efe0793423937d8b78ebf9d6 says: > > "Standard passage provides for a bloblist to be passed from one firmware > > phase to the next. That can be used to pass the devicetree along as well. > > Add an option to support this. > > > > Tests for this will be added as part of the Universal Payload work." > > > > And your new patch says exactly the same thing, but then: > > "Note: This is the correct way to deal with bloblist, since it allows > > boards to choose whether they want to use the devicetree from there, or > > not." and a large number of patchwork links. And after squashing the > > three commits together to see what's being changed, yes, you're > > rewriting a whole bunch of the logic without any explanation of why. It > > seems to fix 3 Chromebooks and isn't tested on anything else. This is > > why I'm saying it's unreviewable. > > > > So no, at the moment I'm inclined to wait for further reports of > > problems, and we're coming up on a year since 70fe23859437 was merged, > > before making any sort of last-minute change here. > > OK, thanks for confirming that.
We could of course imply OF_BLOBLIST which would still allow my boards to work, by disabling it. The opposition to this patch is mystifying to me, particularly as it seems like a clear mess-up. I'll apply this to my tree for now. It is certainly correct. Regards, Simon
