From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Igor Opaniuk <igor.opaniuk@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2019 21:11:39 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 3/7] common: Implement A/B metadata
In-Reply-To: <CAH3KO=3uXtJ0jRaZ7atgmagRcUXEKXNUD+cLoSe+fxH_jsBWQg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1543348642-31045-1-git-send-email-ruslan.trofymenko@linaro.org>
 <1543348642-31045-4-git-send-email-ruslan.trofymenko@linaro.org>
 <CAPnjgZ1sabqD2Md=cf4jEYqC1aMH8xYuNLj6uioH_xnJ=+MyiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH3KO=3uXtJ0jRaZ7atgmagRcUXEKXNUD+cLoSe+fxH_jsBWQg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAByghJY04QL1CDVG3mOwMNSwujipuJVWqyihvN2jDYZQfmOb_g@mail.gmail.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Hi Eugeniu,

Sorry for the late reply.

Please go ahead,
I'm currently on a business trip, so I won't have access to my setup
with A/B till April 19 (so I definetely won't send any updates till
that time).

I'll sync with the patches you're going to send.

Thanks!

On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 7:55 PM Eugeniu Rosca <roscaeugeniu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Simon, Igor, Ruslan,
>
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 4:05 AM Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
> > Hi Ruslan,
> >
> > On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 at 12:57, Ruslan Trofymenko
> > <ruslan.trofymenko@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> [..]
> > > +struct android_bootloader_message {
> >
> > How about andr_bl_msg ? Similarly below
>
> Simon, I am currently working on a new U-Boot command which requires
> the same AOSP header in-tree. Since the v4 of the whole "A/B support"
> series is still WIP by Igor (Ruslan?), may I kindly ask you whether
> you feel strong about these specific header and struct renames? We've
> recently got some feedback from Tom [1] that it should be OK to keep
> the out-of-tree headers untouched. My main motivation is 1) minimizing
> the effort of updating this specific header from upstream and 2) using
> the U-Boot-compliant header/struct names in my WIP changes. I am open
> minded if the original filename is not preserved, but the struct
> renames imply some amount of changes in the comments (see [2]). Also,
> renaming the structs will imply parsing and verifying the comments
> each time the header is updated. It's this kind of tiny bit of
> integration effort which you always want to avoid, since it doesn't
> require any creativity and can't be automated easily. I am looking
> forward for your feedback.
>
> Dear Igor, Ruslan,
>
> How should we handle the import of
> bootloader_message/include/bootloader_message/bootloader_message.h ?
> If it takes more time for you to submit the next version of A/B
> support, would it be fine for you if I do the importing of the header
> myself along with my other patches which depend on it?
>
> [1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1044158/#2129429
> [2] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1044158/#2109299
>
> Many thanks,
> Eugeniu.



--=20
Best regards - Freundliche Gr=C3=BCsse - Meilleures salutations

Igor Opaniuk

mailto: igor.opaniuk at gmail.com
skype: igor.opanyuk
+380 (93) 836 40 67
http://ua.linkedin.com/in/iopaniuk