[U-Boot-Users] AT91 NAND om AT91SAM9260EK

[Haavard Skinnemoen]

On 2/12/07, Ulf Samuelsson <ulf at atmel.com> wrote:
> > On 2/12/07, Ulf Samuelsson <ulf at atmel.com> wrote:
> >> >> It really does not make sense to test his patches only
> >> >> on boards which does not use the dataflash.
> >> >
> >> > If that's all he has, then he has no other choice.
> >>
> >> He has always the choice of realizing that he maybe should
> >> leave this possible improvement to someone capable of testing it
> >> and concentrate on stuff which he can test.
> >
> > Yeah, that's a nice attitude. "Go away, we don't want your patches."
> > Without even looking at them?
>
> I dont want patches that stops U-boot from functioning, that is correct.
> If someone creates a patch which will improve functionality,
> tries it out on a reasonable number of targets and then it
> later turns out that there are some problems in corner cases,
> I will not call for a public hanging.

I do agree with this -- all changes should be tested by _someone_.
However, I don't think we should categorically reject all patches that
haven't been tested by the author. If someone sees something which
looks wrong, or an opportunity for optimization, not having the board
in question shouldn't stop him from submitting a patch IMO. The board
maintainer (or cpu/arch/subsystem maintainer, depending on the code in
question) may test it himself, or send it to someone else for testing.

I disagree with your requirement that the author and the tester
_always_ has to be the same person. Having done thorough testing,
benchmarking, etc. and providing lots of nice numbers will of course
increase the chances of acceptance, but none of it is an absolute
requirement IMO.

> > Btw, I can't help but feel that you're using me as an example here,
> > since I _did_ at one point suggest that one particular patch would
> > only need compile-testing. If you are, please stop it because you're
> > misrepresenting what I said.
>
> No, I was thinking of the guys that wants to change the complete
> support for dataflash with no intention to test it on any
> board with dataflash

Ok, I don't know who you're talking about, then. Sorry for taking it
personal ;-)

Haavard