[U-Boot] [PATCH 00/11] dm: Removal of some boards due to DM_MMC deadline

[Simon Glass]

Hi Tom,

On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 13:03, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> On Sat, 11 May 2019 at 13:36, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> >
> > + Peng, the new MMC maintainer
> >
> > On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 01:23:45PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> >
> > > This series starts the process of removing boards which have not been
> > > converted to driver model for MMC.
> >
> > I'm sorry, no.  Like I've been saying in the SPI thread, and I thought I
> > had made clear elsewhere:
> > - This release we move the drivers to depend on BROKEN.  Jagan has a
> >   patch right now that makes BROKEN make another warning happen, but I'm
> >   not 100% sure I like this, but also haven't had a chance to try my
> >   idea of just removing the driver from the build and seeing if the
> >   boards link, or how hard making them link again is.
> > - Next release we can remove the _drivers_ that depend on BROKEN.
>
> Sorry I must have missed this, have had very little time in the past
> few months. I did see mention of BROKEN elsewhere but had somehow not
> made the connection.
>
> Could we get a note added to MIGRATION.txt perhaps?
>
> >
> > Yes, this will result in a bunch of boards that aren't nearly so
> > functional as they would be expected to be.  This in turn might lead to:
> > - Someone stepping up as they care about the hardware
> > - Removing of the boards down the line when it's clear no one has been
> >   using them as there's a big window where generally key drivers aren't
> >   there anymore.
>
> Sounds like a great plan, and much better and easier than removal
> (which is a real pain to create patches for).

I've hit a snag though. s32v234evb doesn't even support
CONFIG_OF_CONTROL. What should we do in that case?

Regards,
Simon