[U-Boot] [PATCH] doc/feature-removal-schedule.txt: Add CONFIG_SYS_(CLOCKS|PADS)_ENABLE_ALL

[Tom Rini]

I thought I had replied to this, but I don't see it in my email right
now.

On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 11:16:43PM -0400, Michael Cashwell wrote:

> On Apr 2, 2013, at 2:56 PM, Tom Rini <trini at ti.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 04/02/2013 02:41 PM, Michael Cashwell wrote:
> > 
> >> I'm currently using 3.0.8. That version most assuredly fails miserably without defining CONFIG_SYS_(CLOCKS|PADS)_ENABLE_ALL in 
> >> u-boot. That kernel is part of the 3.0.x longterm lineage which as I write this is at 3.0.71.
> > 
> > You're on a 3.0.8 from somewhere-within-TI, that's not getting regular updates (or it would be on 3.0.71 or close-to), yes?
> 
> It's an Android-related project and the kernel is what was current for Ice Cream Sandwich at the time the development started. Being Anddroid-related I expect you can appreciate why kernel updates are not trivial undertakings.
> 
> Would 3.0.71 not need the legacy support? I could likely update to 3.0.71 but going to 3.4.x or 3.8.x would have a large ripple effect to the rest of the system.

No, 3.0.x is 3.0.x, and quite old.

> >> ... forcing an update to 3.4.x, 3.8.x or even later just to keep current with u-boot is an entirely different thing.
> >> 
> >> I'm very worried if that's what's being proposed here as it would be very user unfriendly.
> > 
> > What I'm saying is that once either mainline, or another TI-provided tree exists and doesn't need these options set, they can go away.
> 
> IMO, that's overly dismissive of the collateral impact of making such a large kernel change. As noted, there are many cases where users can update to the latest patch level but more than that is too invasive.
> 
> One could argue that no one's being forced. If a user's kernel is stuck then having their boot loader also be stuck is OK. Perhaps, but it seems a bit artificial.
> 
> I want several new u-boot features (DFU, USB host Ethernet, GPT support, etc.) but cannot casually update my Linux kernel. These feature sets are clearly orthogonal and I would lament an all-or-nothing binding that wasn't technically necessary.

Right.  By v2012.07 you ought to be able to find an Android tree based
on a newer kernel rev, that works without all of these being enabled in
U-Boot.  Or you start paying more of the costs of needing to stay with
legacy software, either backporting further changes, or holding a local
undo of the removal of the pads/conf bits.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20130408/cc935a8c/attachment.pgp>