From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Delivery-date: Tue, 25 Aug 2026 19:11:58 +0200 Received: from mx1.white.stw.pengutronix.de ([2a0a:edc0:0:b01:1d::107]) by lore.white.stw.pengutronix.de with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1wyugo-0078sP-0U for lore@lore.pengutronix.de; Tue, 25 Aug 2026 19:11:58 +0200 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::133]) by mx1.white.stw.pengutronix.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB251204AFA for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2026 19:11:54 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: mx1.white.stw.pengutronix.de; dkim=pass header.d=lists.infradead.org header.s=bombadil.20210309 header.b=FSCL+FUF; spf=pass (mx1.white.stw.pengutronix.de: domain of "barebox-bounces+lore=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org" designates 2607:7c80:54:3::133 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="barebox-bounces+lore=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org"; dmarc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Cc:To:From:Subject:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=P3ctpE6SZ0OPXRPygY/Tef9ysiULpCy/t8iM7BmkXX4=; b=FSCL+FUFDTLvr6jn60gY4fAndK Q9heVDAyi+/QRZk2rkx4Ds6/N+yfYrY6MPeD7nSuwciWa8esPltEfpM3uIGAgjAftRlC2ElZGQDQj wsbz1kmXA7zLGOTzwHl5LA4Y24EIymYgIyQ7IqoFVEG1V+K0ozHcIKiB1G6BlrttbtCYYK6qvWM33 pPB35mM87k+bzWqNl8thvCvi3sd5NduJXOayDYxC9+gSpIQ/ZtthW72aFy9i1JllEebXA7TYxzq6V 4bcUHxi+fMIuC2HibGyRCTBUaEzl0t4zrmq2NiLCSjbygli4G3SKusojX/dsQRoxStMqXGXG4pxIF V8zOTB+w==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wyufV-00000001AuR-0NfE; Tue, 25 Aug 2026 17:10:37 +0000 Received: from mx1.white.stw.pengutronix.de ([2a0a:edc0:0:b01:1d::107]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wyufR-00000001Au6-04hW for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 25 Aug 2026 17:10:35 +0000 Received: from [0.0.0.0] (ptz.office.stw.pengutronix.de [IPv6:2a0a:edc0:0:900:1d::77]) (Authenticated sender: afa@pengutronix.de) by mx1.white.stw.pengutronix.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DE6FD203301; Tue, 25 Aug 2026 19:10:26 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2026 19:10:26 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] state: generic devicetree-overlay based state node injection From: Ahmad Fatoum To: chalianis1@gmail.com, s.hauer@pengutronix.de Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org References: <20260825030548.473672-1-chalianis1@gmail.com> <4462a622-9768-41d9-ad5c-2614954a9aa5@pengutronix.de> Content-Language: en-US, de-DE, de-BE In-Reply-To: <4462a622-9768-41d9-ad5c-2614954a9aa5@pengutronix.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.9.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20260825_101033_213691_B3343E2E X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 11.69 ) X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "bombadil.infradead.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Hi, On 8/25/26 5:02 PM, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > On 8/25/26 5:05 AM, chalianis1@gmail.com wrote: >> so a real state.dtb collides with whatever root the EFI >> payload already registered at boot and is reject [...] Content analysis details: (-1.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 0.0 DMARC_MISSING Missing DMARC policy X-BeenThere: barebox@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "barebox" X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-57.51 / 15.00]; RECEIVED_AUTHENTICATED_BY_MX1(-50.00)[]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[99.99%]; DWL_DNSWL_MED(-2.00)[infradead.org:dkim]; KNOWN_LIST_ID(-1.00)[barebox.lists.infradead.org]; RCVD_DKIM_ARC_DNSWL_MED(-0.50)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+mx:c]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[lists.infradead.org:s=bombadil.20210309]; MAILLIST(-0.20)[mailman]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED(-0.20)[2607:7c80:54:3::133:from]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW(-0.10)[2a0a:edc0:0:900:1d::77:received]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; HAS_LIST_UNSUB(-0.01)[]; RECEIVED_HELO_LOCALHOST(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[pengutronix.de]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_TO(0.00)[gmail.com,pengutronix.de]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; FORWARDED(0.00)[barebox@lists.infradead.org]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[lists.infradead.org:+]; FORGED_SENDER_FORWARDING(0.00)[]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[a.fatoum@pengutronix.de,barebox-bounces@lists.infradead.org]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TAGGED_FROM(0.00)[lore=pengutronix.de]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; FORGED_SENDER(0.00)[a.fatoum@pengutronix.de,barebox-bounces@lists.infradead.org]; ASN(0.00)[asn:7247, ipnet:2607:7c80:54::/48, country:US]; FORGED_SENDER_MAILLIST(0.00)[] X-Rspamd-Action: no action X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: AB251204AFA X-Rspamd-Server: mx1 X-Stat-Signature: y4kki1bw9cp6wmnerm31nxuyer1gyjrx Hi, On 8/25/26 5:02 PM, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > On 8/25/26 5:05 AM, chalianis1@gmail.com wrote: >> so a real state.dtb collides with whatever root the EFI >> payload already registered at boot and is rejected with -EBUSY, and a >> rejected tree's /aliases entries never reach the global alias cache >> of_alias_get() relies on either. > > This argumentation follows from a bug, so it doesn't say anything to the > merit of this new feature. I have now read through the series and my thoughts are that applying overlays to the barebox live tree from outside can be useful (I wouldn't limit it to state), but: - it needs better argumentation what it allows that is not feasible with fragments - it needs some way to account for multi-image I am going to send out my EFI-payload-state-via-fragment series soon and I am interested to hear your thoughts on it. Thanks, Ahmad -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |