Hi Tom, On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 at 09:39, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 07, 2025 at 09:14:29AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > > > On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 at 07:50, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 07, 2025 at 05:13:55AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > > > On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 at 17:45, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 06, 2025 at 05:30:23PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 at 14:15, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 01, 2025 at 03:26:30PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is helpful in tests to be able to show the bootflow that is > > > > > > > > being > > > > > > > > examined. Move show_bootflow() into boot/ and rename it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v2: > > > > > > > > - Add a log_err() for an invalid state > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > boot/bootflow.c | 57 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > > > cmd/bootflow.c | 68 > > > > > > > > ++-------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > include/bootflow.h | 9 ++++++ > > > > > > > > 3 files changed, 69 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-) > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > + case BOOTFLOWST_COUNT: > > > > > > > > + log_err("Unexpected boot value of bootflow error > > > > > > > > %d", > > > > > > > > + bflow->state); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A small thing, checkpatch.pl catches that this isn't aligned with > > > > > > > the '(' > > > > > > > here as it should be. > > > > > > > > > > > > OK. I'm unsure whether I really want this line anyway, since it > > > > > > increases code size. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A larger thing, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but on > > > > > > > reading the > > > > > > > whole set of changes, this move + rename just means we're putting > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > info in the test output, and nothing else? > > > > > > > > > > > > It will also appear if you have CONFIG BOOTSTD_FULL and use > > > > > > 'bootflow > > > > > > list' or 'bootflow scan -l'. > > > > > > > > > > But that should be the case before this patch as well, yes? > > > > > > > > Yes, that's right. This is just moving the code into a place where it > > > > can be used from tests. > > > > > > But it's not being used from tests, with this series. > > > > Please see this one: 'boot: Add a new test for global bootmeths' > > Yes, it calls the function, but doesn't seem to do anything with that, > especially considering what the test does before these patches.
Well, it prints out the information so you can see it when running the test. Other tests show what is going on so it seemed sensible to do the same here. I'm happy to remove this patch if you like. Regards, Simon
