On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de> wrote: > Dear Otavio Salvador, > > In message > <cap9odkqs5fsw+nvqznvm6+4vvk6jfc1vd6ezqfumdkvxzcq...@mail.gmail.com> you > wrote: >> >> > Careful!! This is probably changing behaviour of a number of boards >> > significantly. >> > >> > we have to check if we really want this, and if yes, we have to >> > announce it and provide a grace period (eventually using >> > doc/feature-removal-schedule.txt ?) >> >> It seems the CONFIG_BOOTDELAY as < 0 is not very common: > > You do not know all the many out-of-tree ports... > > [OK, we don't care much about these, true...] > >> ~/hacking/u-boot% git grep CONFIG_BOOTDELAY | egrep 'BOOTDELAY\s* \-[0-9]' >> include/configs/RPXsuper.h:#define CONFIG_BOOTDELAY -1 >> include/configs/ep8260.h:#define CONFIG_BOOTDELAY -1 >> include/configs/espt.h:#define CONFIG_BOOTDELAY -1 >> include/configs/scb9328.h:#define CONFIG_BOOTDELAY -1 >> include/configs/sh7763rdp.h:#define CONFIG_BOOTDELAY -1 >> >> So maybe those could have CONFIG_BOOTDELAY undefined keeping them >> working as before? > > Yes, they could. But it is a change of a long-standing behaviour, and > we try to avoid breaking existing boards. At minimum this needs to be > announced, the respective board maintainers need to be modified, and > given sufficient time to react.
Yes; I agree but breaking out of tree boards ... well, it is the price of not working upstream so I think it cannot be a blocker for U-Boot improvements and cleanups. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: ota...@ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
