On 25.07.25 15:11, Casey Connolly wrote:
Hi Balaji,
On 24/07/2025 11:00, Balaji Selvanathan wrote:
- Update partition name match to use "uefi_" instead of "uefi".
- Prevents incorrect matches with partitions like uefisecapps_a/b.
- Ensures only uefi_a and uefi_b partitions are considered valid.
- Fixes capsule update logic when identifying target partitions.
- Avoids flashing to unintended secure apps partitions.
Please rewrite this in sentences rather than bullet points, this should
only take a sentence or two to explain.
Kind regards,
The patch does not describe why the change is needed.
Wouldn't the suggested patch break existing systems using uefia and
uefib as partition names?
What is wrong about calling the A- and B-partition uefia and uefib
respectively? Looking at the code it seems only important that the
suffix is different. The suffix value seems to be ignored.
Reading the documentation I would not know if uefi_ALPHA and uefi_BRAVO
are valid partition names for the A- and B-slots. I would have expected
a matching documentation change in doc/boards/qualcomm describing the
precise restrictions on naming the A- and B-partitions.
Best regards
Heinrich
Signed-off-by: Balaji Selvanathan <[email protected]>
---
arch/arm/mach-snapdragon/capsule_update.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-snapdragon/capsule_update.c
b/arch/arm/mach-snapdragon/capsule_update.c
index 4dced4961b6..11ef4a0f4b9 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-snapdragon/capsule_update.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-snapdragon/capsule_update.c
@@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ static int find_target_partition(int *devnum, enum
uclass_id *uclass,
* flags might not be set so we assume the A partition
unless the B
* partition is active.
*/
- if (!strncmp(info.name, "uefi", strlen("uefi"))) {
+ if (!strncmp(info.name, "uefi_", strlen("uefi_"))) {
/*
* If U-Boot was chainloaded somehow we can't
be flashed to
* the uefi partition
