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

[Marek Vasut]

On 11/19/2018 10:54 PM, Tom Rini 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.

If we have a list of boards which do not build and their maintainers are
notified reasonable in advance, that is fine by me. A Makefile warning
is good IMO.

-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut