[U-Boot] arm: sunxi: Bananapi_M2_Ultra not working with DM_MMC

[Paul Kocialkowski]

Hi,

Le lundi 08 avril 2019 à 19:03 +0530, Jagan Teki a écrit :
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 6:40 PM Paul Kocialkowski
> <paul.kocialkowski at bootlin.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Le lundi 08 avril 2019 à 18:23 +0530, Jagan Teki a écrit :
> > > Hi Paul,
> > > 
> > > On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 6:00 PM Paul Kocialkowski
> > > <paul.kocialkowski at bootlin.com> wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > On Thu, 2019-04-04 at 05:51 -0300, Pablo Sebastián Greco wrote:
> > > > > A few days ago I tried to boot my Bananapi_M2_Ultra with 2019.04rc, I
> > > > > found that it wasn't booting, 2019.01 was working ok.
> > > > > Bisecting indicated that the problem was after
> > > > > http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=commitdiff;h=a7cca5793774ee139b75a704d6efaa4d29f09f93
> > > > 
> > > > I think the patch should be reverted ASAP since it obviously breaks
> > > > some supported configs. Sadly, the offending commit doesn't say
> > > > anything about the test coverage for the change and what the status is
> > > > after it. There is probably a reason why it was enabled for sun4i only
> > > > before and there must have been a motivation for doing this on all
> > > > sunxi platforms, but then again, the commit message says nothing about
> > > > those underlying reasons.
> > > > 
> > > > I believe we should be more strict on patch review and not let any
> > > > change bringing such a major change get applied with a commit message
> > > > that provides no context about why the change is okay and how it was
> > > > tested.
> > > 
> > > Appropriate your concern.
> > > 
> > > If you please list what all boards are not working with this effect,
> > > please write back. we will defiantly look into it. All these changes
> > > were merged in MW which is 2.5 months back, commenting in final stage
> > > like this is not the professional way.
> > 
> > I really do not think this is a sane approach to follow. You can't make
> > a change like this, with no context whatsoever in the commit message,
> > which ends up breaking other people's setups and wait for others to
> > debug subsequent issues it introduces that you don't encounter.
> > 
> > Sorry but your commit should never have been merged. Sure, I wasn't
> > there to review it either, but the code review process definitely did
> > not go as planned here.
> 
> Which commit message your referring to? are you referring this
> patch[1] commit message. let me point what exactly is the issue?
> 
> [1] http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=commit;h=a7cca5793774ee139b75a704d6efaa4d29f09f93

Yes, this is the patch I'm talking about.

The issue with it is that the commit message is totally redundant: the
description does not say more than what the diff does.

A git commit description should provide context about what the change
does above the modified lines: what problem it tries to resolve and how
, on what hardware, how it was tested, etc. Especially for a commit
making such a big change, the commit message must have all this
information.

Do you see why I think it's a problem?

Cheers,

Paul

-- 
Paul Kocialkowski, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com