On Mon, May 25 2026, Simon Glass <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> - __u_boot_list_ + 2_ + @_list + _2_ + @_entry >> + __u_boot_list_ + @_list + _2_ + @_entry >> >> and the C variable name is >> >> :: >> >> - _u_boot_list + _2_ + @_list + _2_ + @_entry >> + _u_boot_list + @_list + _2_ + @_entry > > Not quite - the actual symbol is _u_boot_list_##_list##_2_##_name > (note the trailing underscore on the prefix), so for list 'drivers' > and entry 'first' the name expands to _u_boot_list_drivers_2_first > > As written here, the components concatenate to > _u_boot_listdrivers_2_first - please change to: > > _u_boot_list_ + @_list + _2_ + @_entry > > to match the section line above and the unified '%u_boot_list_ + ...' > form a few lines later.
Good catch, I hadn't noticed the inconsistency in how the existing section versus symbol names were documented. >> diff --git a/doc/api/linker_lists.rst b/doc/api/linker_lists.rst >> @@ -46,16 +46,8 @@ Start and end symbols for a list can generally be defined >> as >> >> :: >> >> - %u_boot_list_2_ + @_list + _1_... >> - %u_boot_list_2_ + @_list + _3_... >> - >> -Start and end symbols for the whole of the linker lists area can be >> -defined as >> - >> -:: >> - >> - %u_boot_list_1_... >> - %u_boot_list_3_... >> + %u_boot_list_ + @_list + _1_... >> + %u_boot_list_ + @_list + _3_... > > The commit message says the surrounding 'Note the two _2_ constant > components' paragraph is now easier to grok because only one such > component remains, but the paragraph itself still says 'two' in the > patched file. Please update it to say 'one' and adjust the rest of the > sentence, since the start/end mapping is now relative to the single > _2_ separator between list and entry. Ah, yes, that does require rewording to make sense. >> diff --git a/doc/api/linker_lists.rst b/doc/api/linker_lists.rst >> @@ -82,19 +74,19 @@ defined for the whole list and each sub-list: >> - %u_boot_list_2_drivers_2_i2c_2_first >> - %u_boot_list_2_drivers_2_i2c_2_first >> - %u_boot_list_2_drivers_2_i2c_2_second >> + %u_boot_list_drivers_2_i2c_1 >> + %u_boot_list_drivers_2_i2c_2_first >> + %u_boot_list_drivers_2_i2c_2_first >> + %u_boot_list_drivers_2_i2c_2_second > > BTW '...i2c_2_first' is listed twice - please drop the duplicate at > the same time. > Will do. Thanks, Rasmus
