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.