[U-Boot-Users] AT91 NAND om AT91SAM9260EK

[Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@gmail.com>]

On 2/11/07, Ulf Samuelsson <ulf@atmel.com> wrote:
> Requesting me to modify the *contents* of a duplicated file because
> I want to have a single file I consider as an unreasonable request.

I agree, but I don't recall anyone ever suggesting that (except that
my initial proposal did schedule some changes before the at91sam926x
board patches, but I also said that I was perfectly fine with doing
them later.)

> > Of course, Atmel needs to do testing as well, and it will probably
> > make sense to offer special "Atmel blessed" versions of u-boot which
> > have been tested thoroughly on all supported configurations for the
> > customers that need this. But we can't say that nobody is allowed to
> > make any changes to the official driver because it has been tested and
> > we don't want to do it again.
>
> No, but I am only asking for two things:
>
> 1) that I can apply the complete patchset for the at91sam926x and have that
>     accepted before people start this activity

That's up to Wolfgang I guess. I've already said that I can wait for
the at91sam926x support to go in before I start modifying the at45
driver.

> 2) That people make sure that they do not destroy the U-boot
>     support for at91 by providing untested patches.

Well, I do agree that submitting totally untested patches is
unacceptable unless they are clearly marked as such. On the other
hand, it's also totally unreasonable to demand that people submitting
patches test them on boards they don't have.

If someone submits a patch that's not fully tested, we'll just have to
test it before it enters mainline. It's really that simple.

> > I don't know what you're getting at here, but yes, in order to review
> > a patch, you _do_ need to study it and give an unbiased opinion. But
> > it works the other way around too -- if you want review, you _have_ to
> > be willing to make changes based on that review.
>
> Yes, I am prepared to put the spi part and the at45 support
> parts of at45.c in any suggested directory.
> That is a reasonable thing to ask for.
>
> To ask me to modify the *contents* of at45.c
> just because I want to remove duplication is out of line, IMHO.
> I dont say it is a bad thing, just that it should be done
> after the patchset is applied, and then by a group willing to maintain
> and test the code.
>
> If I am not allowed to remove the duplication, then there is no possibility
> to have a common at45.c and I will be forced to modify the
> drivers/at45.c in the at91sam926x patchset to be located
>
> board/at91sam9260ek/at45.c
> board/at91sam9261ek/at45.c
> board/at91sam9260ek/at45.c
>
> so we will have 5 at45.c instead of 1.
> I doubt that patch is going to be accepted.

You keep repeating this as if anyone actually disagreed with you that
we want a single unified at45 driver. Or that we should only start
changing it _after_ it's been consolidated.

And yes, I happen to be part of a group willing to maintain and test
the code. Not on every single board out there, but if we can manage to
find a tester for at least one RM board and one SAM board, I think
we'll be pretty well covered.

Haavard