Hi Daniel, On Tue, 29 Sept 2026 at 01:32, Daniel Golle <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Simon, > > thank you for the extensive review of the series. Meanwhile v2 had > already been sent and Tom has already picked it into 'next'. > Apart from one issue (see below) I've addressed all correctness issues > you have pointed out in a follow up series which I have sent now.
Great! > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2026 at 09:13:53AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Daniel, > > > > On 2026-08-23T19:12:43, Daniel Golle <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The first in-tree consumer, a bootmeth for OpenWrt-style FIT firmware, > > > will > > > follow as a separate series. > > > > When that comes, will you be able to add a test for the bootmeth? > > Yes. I've got that planned but it's not done yet. Compared to imagemap > and the dm-verity integration (which are both covered by unit tests) > the bootmeth by itself also isn't that spectacular ;) > > > > boot: fit: support on-demand loading in fit_image_load() > > > > Related: patch 6 adds a struct udevice *imagemap field to both struct > > bootm_info and struct bootm_headers, but nothing in this series sets > > either outside the tests. The FIT hook is dead code in the built tree. > > You are right, that is the gap the bootmeth series is going to close, > and until it lands the integration is carried on the strength of > out-of-tree testing, which is not a good place for it to sit. > I would rather fix that by getting the consumer in than by adding a > synthetic caller. Sounds good. Regards, Simon
