Message ID | d61eb00b-baa8-4804-801a-045eb56ed617@gmx.de |
---|---|
State | Changes Requested |
Delegated to: | Tom Rini |
Headers | show |
Series | Pull request efi-2024-01-rc2 | expand |
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 04:20:06AM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > Dear Tom, > > The following changes since commit 5cab3515f8c9796015739c1750b8933291c816be: > > Merge tag 'u-boot-rockchip-20231024' of > https://source.denx.de/u-boot/custodians/u-boot-rockchip (2023-10-24 > 09:39:52 -0400) > > are available in the Git repository at: > > https://source.denx.de/u-boot/custodians/u-boot-efi.git > tags/efi-2024-01-rc2 > > for you to fetch changes up to 916dad34af0e53181dfe21f5764d3a787cb24bdc: > > efi_loader: fix EFI_ENTRY point on get_active_pcr_banks (2023-10-24 > 23:56:43 +0200) > > Gitlab CI showed no issues: > https://source.denx.de/u-boot/custodians/u-boot-efi/-/pipelines/18293 > So, there's not been enough time for "efi_loader: expose the device-tree file name" as there's still comments on how to word things there (and I'm fine taking this eventually for the release, we don't need it today). And since we're here anyways, "efi_loader: fix efi_dp_from_eth" isn't needed as with "sandbox: eliminate unused functions from binaries" we can build sandbox with EFI_LOADER=y NET=n LTO=n (and CMDLINE=n with the rest of my v4 + an unrelated to this fix for fastboot) and since I'm asking for changes anyhow, lets just drop this. Thanks.
On 10/25/23 20:57, Tom Rini wrote: > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 04:20:06AM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > >> Dear Tom, >> >> The following changes since commit 5cab3515f8c9796015739c1750b8933291c816be: >> >> Merge tag 'u-boot-rockchip-20231024' of >> https://source.denx.de/u-boot/custodians/u-boot-rockchip (2023-10-24 >> 09:39:52 -0400) >> >> are available in the Git repository at: >> >> https://source.denx.de/u-boot/custodians/u-boot-efi.git >> tags/efi-2024-01-rc2 >> >> for you to fetch changes up to 916dad34af0e53181dfe21f5764d3a787cb24bdc: >> >> efi_loader: fix EFI_ENTRY point on get_active_pcr_banks (2023-10-24 >> 23:56:43 +0200) >> >> Gitlab CI showed no issues: >> https://source.denx.de/u-boot/custodians/u-boot-efi/-/pipelines/18293 >> > > So, there's not been enough time for "efi_loader: expose the device-tree > file name" as there's still comments on how to word things there (and > I'm fine taking this eventually for the release, we don't need it > today). You and Ilias marked this patch as reviewed. Which comments should I look at? > And since we're here anyways, "efi_loader: fix efi_dp_from_eth" > isn't needed as with "sandbox: eliminate unused functions from binaries" > we can build sandbox with EFI_LOADER=y NET=n LTO=n (and CMDLINE=n with > the rest of my v4 + an unrelated to this fix for fastboot) and since I'm > asking for changes anyhow, lets just drop this. Thanks. > I am fine with dropping the patch. Will you be moving that sandbox patch? Best regards Heinrich
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 10:09:55PM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > On 10/25/23 20:57, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 04:20:06AM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > > > > > Dear Tom, > > > > > > The following changes since commit 5cab3515f8c9796015739c1750b8933291c816be: > > > > > > Merge tag 'u-boot-rockchip-20231024' of > > > https://source.denx.de/u-boot/custodians/u-boot-rockchip (2023-10-24 > > > 09:39:52 -0400) > > > > > > are available in the Git repository at: > > > > > > https://source.denx.de/u-boot/custodians/u-boot-efi.git > > > tags/efi-2024-01-rc2 > > > > > > for you to fetch changes up to 916dad34af0e53181dfe21f5764d3a787cb24bdc: > > > > > > efi_loader: fix EFI_ENTRY point on get_active_pcr_banks (2023-10-24 > > > 23:56:43 +0200) > > > > > > Gitlab CI showed no issues: > > > https://source.denx.de/u-boot/custodians/u-boot-efi/-/pipelines/18293 > > > > > > > So, there's not been enough time for "efi_loader: expose the device-tree > > file name" as there's still comments on how to word things there (and > > I'm fine taking this eventually for the release, we don't need it > > today). > > You and Ilias marked this patch as reviewed. > > Which comments should I look at? Well, Simons that you replied to now, and my follow-up. As yes, I did RB it, but I also didn't expect it to be merged a day after posting since it's not a critical security fix. Most changes should sit on the list for a few days at least, to give people a chance to read and comment. I thought it was good enough at first but on reading what Simon said (and this is a thing I will do as I read a longer thread I hadn't seen at first) I changed my mind a bit, and noticed something else too. > > And since we're here anyways, "efi_loader: fix efi_dp_from_eth" > > isn't needed as with "sandbox: eliminate unused functions from binaries" > > we can build sandbox with EFI_LOADER=y NET=n LTO=n (and CMDLINE=n with > > the rest of my v4 + an unrelated to this fix for fastboot) and since I'm > > asking for changes anyhow, lets just drop this. Thanks. > > > > I am fine with dropping the patch. Will you be moving that sandbox patch? Yes, the gc-sections patch will be merged, Simon and I talked off-list about it more.