Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] state: generic devicetree-overlay based state node injection

[anis chali <chalianis1@gmail.com>]

Hi
Le mar. 25 août 2026 à 19:10, Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@pengutronix.de> a écrit :
>
> 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:
Ack, and if we have overlays we can apply whatever we want (state, other things)
it more useful than the state, because it permits to add more stuff
and permits to
address state and more.

> - it needs better argumentation what it allows that is not feasible with
> fragments
> - it needs some way to account for multi-image
Yes, agreed. One approach could be to use a global label, or
alternatively scan all
barebox state partitions and check for a tag that matches the
corresponding state
fragment or overlay. The matching backend partition would then be used.

> 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 |
>