On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 3:54 PM Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 10:32:01PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > > On 11/19/2018 08:45 PM, Adam Ford wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 12:36 PM Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 10:54 AM Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> All boards should now be migrated to use CONFIG_BLK. This series removes > > >>> those with build problems using this option. > > >>> > > >>> If maintainers want to keep these boards in they should send a patch in > > >>> the next week or two. Otherwise the board will be removed in the next > > >>> release, and will need to be added and re-reviewed later. > > >>> > > >>> The goal is to have all boards use driver model. But so far, we do allow > > >>> CONFIG_DM to not be defined. > > >>> > > >>> PLEASE NOTE: This is not an easy process. It is possible that your board > > >>> does work, or works with only minor changes. Please try to understand > > >>> that > > >>> the removal of a board is not done because people don't like your board. > > >>> In fact the board might have been the first one I used when trying out > > >>> U-Boot! It's just that we expect maintainers to keep up with the > > >>> migration > > >>> to driver model which has been running now for 4 years. It just isn't > > >>> possible for a few people to migrate and test hundreds of boards. > > >>> > > >>> So, send a patch! > > >> > > >> OK, so with the intention of "need to light a fire", consider the fire > > >> lit! But, I think v2 of this series needs to: > > >> - Address the bug that's been noted of you checking on "DM_BLK" when > > >> it's really just "BLK". > > >> - Do a test build with BLK just being unconditional now. For example, > > >> you're deleting the am335x_evm family but it builds fine with BLK > > >> being enabled now. I even gave it a run time test via test.py and > > >> we're fine. So, I think a new run where you see what fails to build > > >> with BLK enabled by default now is in order to come up with a new > > >> delete list. > > >> > > > > > > When we were migrating toward GCC 6, we introduced a warning message > > > that was displayed at build indicating older versions of GCC would be > > > unsupported, and GCC 6 would become a requirement. The > > > CONFIG_DM_I2C_COMPAT generates a build warning and suggests that it be > > > removed. I would like to propose that in the future, when setting > > > deadlines, we insert something into the build mechanism that generates > > > a warning to tell people that something is going to happen. > > > > I agree, that sounds good. > > > > I am extremely unhappy by how Simon decided, unilaterally, some > > arbitrary deadline, told pretty much no one about that deadline and then > > put a knife on many peoples' throats by sending out this series which > > removes boards that are actively used and maintained, demanding they be > > converted right this instant. > > OK, lets step back for a moment. Part of the problem is that yes, we > (I) never found a good way to make a big scary build warning happen. > But, lets look at https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/798309/ for a > moment, which is when we set this deadline, and we had a good bit of > discussion about related issues to make it happen. > > I also know that around the v2018.05 release I said, in public, but no I > can't find a link right this moment, that we were pushing off a little > bit on dropping _everything_ right then as there was basically some > fairly important / widely used USB stuff that hadn't been converted yet > (which has since been, I think, otherwise am335x_evm & co wouldn't have > been happy?). I know I did since I can see in the archives a number of > series where maintainers did a bunch of changes to various platforms / > SoCs to turn on BLK right then. > > So, no, I don't want to drop a bunch of platforms _right_now_. But we > really need to see what doesn't link anymore with BLK forced on, and > plan from there.
I remember the discussion, but it seems rather arbitrary for one person to unilaterally start deleting boards. I think a more appropriate approach would be to start a dialog instead of deleting boards and then giving people a fairly short notice to respond - especially this close to the US Thanksgiving holiday, several religious holidays and New Years. Many people have planed time off and/or end-of-year deadlines to hit without getting an abrupt suprise. adam > > -- > Tom _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
