[U-Boot] [PATCH] CONFIG_BOOTDELAY default should not affect runtime

[Otavio Salvador]

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Wolfgang Denk <wd at denx.de> wrote:
> Dear Otavio Salvador,
>
> In message <CAP9ODKqs5Fsw+NVQzNvm6+4VVK6jfC1vD6eZQfumdKvxzCqsjQ at mail.gmail.com> you wrote:
>>
>> > Careful!! This is probably changing behaviour of a number of boards
>> > significantly.
>> >
>> > we have to check if we really want this, and if yes, we have to
>> > announce it and provide a grace period (eventually using
>> > doc/feature-removal-schedule.txt ?)
>>
>> It seems the CONFIG_BOOTDELAY as < 0 is not very common:
>
> You do not know all the many out-of-tree ports...
>
> [OK, we don't care much about these, true...]
>
>> ~/hacking/u-boot% git grep CONFIG_BOOTDELAY | egrep 'BOOTDELAY\s* \-[0-9]'
>> include/configs/RPXsuper.h:#define CONFIG_BOOTDELAY        -1
>> include/configs/ep8260.h:#define CONFIG_BOOTDELAY        -1
>> include/configs/espt.h:#define CONFIG_BOOTDELAY        -1
>> include/configs/scb9328.h:#define CONFIG_BOOTDELAY   -1
>> include/configs/sh7763rdp.h:#define CONFIG_BOOTDELAY        -1
>>
>> So maybe those could have CONFIG_BOOTDELAY undefined keeping them
>> working as before?
>
> Yes, they could.  But it is a change of a long-standing behaviour, and
> we try to avoid breaking existing boards.  At minimum this needs to be
> announced, the respective board maintainers need to be modified, and
> given sufficient time to react.

Yes; I agree but breaking out of tree boards ... well, it is the price
of not working upstream so I think it cannot be a blocker for U-Boot
improvements and cleanups.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio at ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854              http://projetos.ossystems.com.br