[U-Boot-Users] mpc8245 changed from u-boot-1.0.0 to uboot-1.0.2

[Wolfgang Denk]

In message <1080925072.4706.13.camel at sabrina.arlut.utexas.edu> you wrote:
> 
> Here is the fix as you requested. But this begs the question, can our
> board specific files change at anytime? And not only be changed but be
> changed into something that does not work? 

Actually this can happen any time. It is pretty unlikely, though.

But as maintainer of the U-Boot project I will occasionally decide to
check in patches which may effect board specific code, too.

To perform a global clean-up operations,  for  example  to  eliminate
redundand code and replace it by a common implementation like in this
case,  I have no other choice but to implement this change everywhere
and for every board. Of course we try to test on  as  many  different
boards as possible, but we cannot test on all boards.

Although never  put  down  in  writing  I  consider  it  one  of  the
responsibilities  of  a  board  maintainer  to check current versions
every now and then - and this definitely means more  frequently  than
once every three months.

> I can understand changing code in the rest of u-boot and having that
> break our board code, but I don't see the problem with our own board
> code using a depreciated method? Maybe just a note in our board code

Experience has shown that it simply does not work to change  the  im-
plementation  or  to  provide  new interfaces and simpy hope that all
board maintainers will adapt  these  changes  in  a  resonable  time.
Others  staring  with  a new port will are guaranteed to pick up such
old files as model, and continue to use the old stuff.

The only way to get consistent code is to enforce the change for  all
boards.

In your case it took nearly 3 months  until  you  even  noticed  that
something was changed.


> that a certain method is depreciated would be more appropriate? Is there
> another reason I am missing?

Guess how many  board  maintainers  will  change  working  code  just
because there is another way to do it?

Sorry, but in my experience this doesn't work.


I apologize for breaking your board.


Now for your patch:


> +		/* This code does not work, and needs to be fixed at a later
> +		date */

Do you really want me to check this in? I feel you should spend  some
more time and fix the code first and submit a new patch then.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87  Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88  Email: wd at denx.de
Swap read error.  You lose your mind.