[U-Boot] [PATCH 00/93] dm: Move towards completing CONFIG_BLK migration

[Adam Ford]

On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 3:54 PM Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 10:32:01PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On 11/19/2018 08:45 PM, Adam Ford wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 12:36 PM Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 10:54 AM Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> 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.
> > >>>
> > >>> The goal is to have all boards use driver model. But so far, we do allow
> > >>> CONFIG_DM to not be defined.
> > >>>
> > >>> PLEASE NOTE: This is not an easy process. It is possible that your board
> > >>> does work, or works with only minor changes. Please try to understand that
> > >>> the removal of a board is not done because people don't like your board.
> > >>> In fact the board might have been the first one I used when trying out
> > >>> U-Boot! It's just that we expect maintainers to keep up with the migration
> > >>> to driver model which has been running now for 4 years. It just isn't
> > >>> possible for a few people to migrate and test hundreds of boards.
> > >>>
> > >>> So, send a patch!
> > >>
> > >> OK, so with the intention of "need to light a fire", consider the fire
> > >> lit!  But, I think v2 of this series needs to:
> > >> - Address the bug that's been noted of you checking on "DM_BLK" when
> > >>   it's really just "BLK".
> > >> - Do a test build with BLK just being unconditional now.  For example,
> > >>   you're deleting the am335x_evm family but it builds fine with BLK
> > >>   being enabled now.  I even gave it a run time test via test.py and
> > >>   we're fine.  So, I think a new run where you see what fails to build
> > >>   with BLK enabled by default now is in order to come up with a new
> > >>   delete list.
> > >>
> > >
> > > When we were migrating toward GCC 6, we introduced a warning message
> > > that was displayed at build indicating older versions of GCC would be
> > > unsupported, and GCC 6 would become a requirement.  The
> > > CONFIG_DM_I2C_COMPAT generates a build warning and suggests that it be
> > > removed.  I would like to propose that in the future, when setting
> > > deadlines, we insert something into the build mechanism that generates
> > > a warning to tell people that something is going to happen.
> >
> > I agree, that sounds good.
> >
> > I am extremely unhappy by how Simon decided, unilaterally, some
> > arbitrary deadline, told pretty much no one about that deadline and then
> > put a knife on many peoples' throats by sending out this series which
> > removes boards that are actively used and maintained, demanding they be
> > converted right this instant.
>
> OK, lets step back for a moment.  Part of the problem is that yes, we
> (I) never found a good way to make a big scary build warning happen.
> But, lets look at https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/798309/ for a
> moment, which is when we set this deadline, and we had a good bit of
> discussion about related issues to make it happen.
>
> I also know that around the v2018.05 release I said, in public, but no I
> can't find a link right this moment, that we were pushing off a little
> bit on dropping _everything_ right then as there was basically some
> fairly important / widely used USB stuff that hadn't been converted yet
> (which has since been, I think, otherwise am335x_evm & co wouldn't have
> been happy?).  I know I did since I can see in the archives a number of
> series where maintainers did a bunch of changes to various platforms /
> SoCs to turn on BLK right then.
>
> So, no, I don't want to drop a bunch of platforms _right_now_.  But we
> really need to see what doesn't link anymore with BLK forced on, and
> plan from there.

I remember the discussion, but it seems rather arbitrary for one
person to unilaterally start deleting boards. I think a more
appropriate approach would be to start a dialog instead of deleting
boards and then giving people a fairly short notice to respond -
especially this close to the US Thanksgiving holiday, several
religious holidays and New Years.  Many people have planed time off
and/or end-of-year deadlines to hit without getting an abrupt suprise.

adam


>
> --
> Tom