From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marek Vasut Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 14:55:02 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 00/93] dm: Move towards completing CONFIG_BLK migration In-Reply-To: <20181120135312.GS11247@bill-the-cat> References: <20181119155413.158098-1-sjg@chromium.org> <20181120133739.GQ11247@bill-the-cat> <2b6af462-05c1-f1d2-82e7-09583c212ac3@gmail.com> <20181120134236.GR11247@bill-the-cat> <20181120135312.GS11247@bill-the-cat> Message-ID: <231850a4-5dc9-9627-f5b6-94f36b990e7c@gmail.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 11/20/2018 02:53 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 02:45:24PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: >> On 11/20/2018 02:42 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 02:40:43PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>> On 11/20/2018 02:37 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 01:42:15PM +0100, Soeren Moch wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 19.11.18 16:52, Simon Glass 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. >>>>>> Fabio, Stefano, >>>>>> >>>>>> it seems (almost?) all i.mx6 boards should be removed within two weeks. >>>>>> But would it not make more sense to convert the reference boards first >>>>>> (mx6sabresd >>>>>> in my case for tbs2910), and let hobbyist maintainers like me take this >>>>>> as example for >>>>>> their own modifications? >>>>> >>>>> So, I replied to the main thread earlier but no, we're not going to drop >>>>> everything in 2 weeks, especially since there's a lot of false positives >>>>> in this series. >>>>> >>>>>> Simon, Tom, >>>>>> >>>>>> is this really the usual u-boot working style to remove about hundred >>>>>> boards within >>>>>> two weeks without prior warning? As hobbyist board maintainer I try to >>>>>> follow >>>>>> new developments, and more than once I fixed up regressions introduced >>>>>> by others >>>>>> in general code. >>>>>> But I cannot follow all development details without any heads-up. And >>>>>> even the >>>>>> NXP folks seem to be surprised about this. >>>>>> >>>>>> All problems with this transition seem to be located around usbstorage >>>>>> and sata. >>>>>> This is for sure not really very board specific. Is there any migration >>>>>> guide, or >>>>>> examples how other SoC architectures did this conversion? >>>>> >>>>> I'll admit this hasn't been our best notification. But, the deadline >>>>> was discussed about a year ago (and then no, I didn't get a build-time >>>>> warning in). Then around v2018.05 I said it wasn't going to be a >>>>> removal type problem yet as we had a lot of boards to fixup still, and >>>>> repeated that at v2018.07. That did lead to a lot of things getting >>>>> addressed. But yes, we still have some large areas that after a few >>>>> years still have not been converted, and that puts me in a hard spot >>>>> too. >>>> >>>> Build time warning for a year would be good ? >>> >>> A year for this? No. New deadlines? That's not too far off from what >>> we've done historically, so yes. >> >> Give people some sort of breathing space to get the conversion done. >> Stressing people out by arbitrary deadlines will lead nowhere. > > Sure, agreed. I didn't say we're going to drop all these boards, nor > are we going to drop SATA and USB Storage (if those are still all that's > left to convert) for this release. But given that we proposed a > deadline in August 2017, made email-but-not-build noise about it between > May and July/August of this year, no, I also don't think setting a new > deadline of November 2019 is the right call either. > > So, really, lets see what the fails to build boards are with BLK being > on when we have block devices. Then assess what a good deadline is. Sounds good. >>>> Maybe we need some generic Makefile macro to set those up. >>> >>> It would be nice, yes. I think the problem here is (or, was) the >>> complex set of options that didn't work. >> >> The problem was many people didn't know about the conversion deadline or >> simply forgot. And reminding them with a 100-patch series removing half >> of the boards is like splashing icy water bucket in their sleeping faces. > > Alright. But we've already tried less shocking approaches to > conversion, but in public (over the summer when Simon listed most of > these boards in a series but I _think_ his script failed to CC the > universe and didn't follow up with a repost that did email everyone) and > perhaps private too (I honestly don't recall if I did, or just intended > to, ask you about the USB side of this on IRC). I think the Makefile noise would be good. It'd be annoying enough and persistently remind people to fix their stuff. -- Best regards, Marek Vasut