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

[Jagan Teki]

On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 7:31 PM Paul Kocialkowski
<paul.kocialkowski at bootlin.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Le lundi 08 avril 2019 à 19:21 +0530, Jagan Teki a écrit :
> > On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 7:06 PM Paul Kocialkowski
> > <paul.kocialkowski at bootlin.com> wrote:
> > > 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?
> >
> > I can't agree if we consider the series of changes in one set. As I
> > mentioned in another mail, this patch is last from the DM_MMC
> > migration series and as the last one it enable the DM_MMC global to
> > Allwinner (not respective to board). The previous patches are trying
> > to support and fix DM_MMC on respective SoC's and board. ie the reason
> > I didn't mention any thing related to board or any other information
> > since It is global SoC change.
>
> I don't think this is relevant. You can't expect people to go through
> the list archive, find which series this commit was attached to,
> etc. Especially when running a bisect, where you'll end up with a
> single offending commit.
>
> You need to make sure that each commit message provides context about
> what it's doing, and not just rephrase the diff.

Do you still think this message shows the diff? The change is as
simple as enable DM_MMC for Allwinner and doesn't make any direct
changes to underlying boards on the same change.

"Enable DM_MMC for all Allwinner SoCs, this will eventually
enable BLK."

>
> In order words, it's *never* okay to just re-work the diff, you
> *always* need to describe the context. That's not something optional to
> only do on special occasions.

Mentioning again, I don't see any point to mention board information
for this commit since the diff or change clearly focusing on global
Allwinner platform enablement for DM_MMC and the same mentioned in the
body.