[PATCH u-boot 0/3] Revert broken Bootmenu commits

[Pali Rohár]

On Sunday 25 June 2023 10:52:13 Tom Rini wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 09:50:39AM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Saturday 24 June 2023 12:58:07 Tom Rini wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 10:50:41AM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 20 June 2023 11:20:35 Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > Hi Tom, Pali,
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 at 20:51, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 02:53:21PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > These 3 commits broke support for U-Boot Bootmenu on Nokia N900.
> > > > > > > Issues were reported more than month ago, but nobody reacted to them.
> > > > > > > So revert these broken commits for now, to fix U-Boot Bootmenu support.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > With these revered commits, U-Boot Bootmenu from master branch is
> > > > > > > working fine again on Nokia N900.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pali Rohár (3):
> > > > > > >   Revert "video: Enable VIDEO_ANSI by default only with EFI"
> > > > > > >   Revert "menu: Factor out menu-keypress decoding"
> > > > > > >   Revert "menu: Make use of CLI character processing"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >  cmd/bootmenu.c        |   9 ++--
> > > > > > >  cmd/eficonfig.c       |  12 ++---
> > > > > > >  common/cli_getch.c    |  12 ++---
> > > > > > >  common/menu.c         | 122 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> > > > > > >  drivers/video/Kconfig |   7 +--
> > > > > > >  include/cli.h         |   4 +-
> > > > > > >  include/menu.h        |  17 +-----
> > > > > > >  7 files changed, 91 insertions(+), 92 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Following up over here, while
> > > > > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20230612201434.861700-1-sjg@chromium.org/
> > > > > > addresses some of the issues, but not all (as it clearly isn't working
> > > > > > in all of the cases Pali has explained), looking in to the VIDEO_ANSI
> > > > > > part of this too, all three of these reverts are related seemingly to
> > > > > > something escape-character related.  I'm not taking any of the revert
> > > > > > commits in just yet, but will by the next -rc if we don't have something
> > > > > > that fixes all of the issues.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I did send a series [1] with a fix for the nokia_rx51 keyboard driver,
> > > > > including the previous ansi-code patch. Given that:
> > > > > 
> > > > > - this problem doesn't seem to manifest on other boards
> > > > > - it does not cause any CI test to fail
> > > > > - there seem to be bugs in the nokia_rx51 implementation which are a
> > > > > possible/likely cause
> > > > > - the nokia_rx51 CI uses a 10-year-old out-of-tree QEMU
> > > > > - the problem goes away if debugging is added, suggesting it is
> > > > > related to timing
> > > > > 
> > > > > ...I don't think a revert is appropriate.
> > > > 
> > > > Unfortunately it does not fix this issue :-( New patch series from [1]
> > > > applied on top of the master branch has still issue with DOWN key on
> > > > emulated UART terminal.
> > > > 
> > > > > Pali, can you please take a look and see if you can debug what is
> > > > > actually going on? Here is my guess:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 1. When an arrow key is pressed, cli_ch_process() handles it by being
> > > > > passed the codes in sequence: \e [ B
> > > > > 2. Calling cli_ch_process() with ichar = 0 causes it to think the
> > > > > sequence is finished: \e [ \0 B   (this doesn't work since the \0 ends
> > > > > the sequence)
> > > > > 3. nokia_rx51 keyboard driver is returning '\0' even when key codes
> > > > > are pending, causing cli_ch_process() to be told that the sequence is
> > > > > done
> > > > 
> > > > I can look at it later, but I'm loosing motivation to do whole debugging
> > > > for another issue again, because for the last year my fixes and other
> > > > patches were stalled and u-boot devs show me that they are not
> > > > interested even in commenting them. I do not want to work again on
> > > > something which would be ignored.
> > > 
> > > Well, unless your changes here break something else, I don't think a fix
> > > for your problem will be ignored.
> > 
> > This is something which I read here more times in the past... and
> > reality was different.
> > 
> > Should I remind you that there are waiting eMMC fixes for mvebu and
> > again discussion about them stalled? Or rather should I say that it is
> > again ignored?
> 
> No, you should just say they're still waiting for review.  Since they're
> waiting for review. The MMC custodian has been asked to review them, and
> hasn't yet. And they don't appear to be super critical changes, and they
> conflict with other series, so yes, they'll get picked up when the
> custodian has time to review everything.

And what is "critical change" if it is not fixing booting (from eMMC)?

> > I have already spend time on this and have done everything needed to
> > make bootmenu working again. I have also prepared patches which are
> > fixing this problem and which were also tested.
> 
> Note that "I reverted the commit" is not a fix.

And what is the "change which makes feature X working again after it was
broken" if not a fix? Of course, it is _not_ fix because it is fixing
the problem.

> > And if you want something more from me then you show me why this time it
> > would be different, and again empty promises.
> 
> What I'd like is for you to not assume worst-faith.

Of course not. I'm just assuming that same thing happen as in the past.
>From realistic point of view, this is the best approximation what to
assume.

Also you just few lines above wrote that fixing broken booting is not a
critical change at all, so you are just expressed that you are not going
to take fixes.

> If you can fix the
> problem quickly at this point it'll get reviewed (assuming Simon has
> time, next week is EOSS) and merged if it's a safe enough looking fix.
> Otherwise it'll get in v2023.10.

And here you wrote that "change maybe land in v2023.10 version". But at
that time u-boot would move and again it would not land because change
from this time wound not applied on top of the master branch which would
be in the future.

I'm not newbie here, I see what is happening for more years with my
patches.

Or should I remind you what is the average time how long rx51 patches
have been waiting on the list until they were merged?

I have already provided a fix for this problem. What happened? Nothing,
I was just ask to do another fix. Do you think, that I'm a total idiot,
who is going to prepare a new patch, which would be ignored or rejected
like the previous one, or other other work which I done?

> > > > Hence, now I did only smaller - but still important - task: Locate exact
> > > > commits which broke particular feature and prepare reverts on top of the
> > > > master branch which _really_ fix the broken functionality - and make
> > > > code working again.
> > > 
> > > Unfortunately you're also the only person able to replicate the problem,
> > > and Simon has tried (and posted fixes to your platform for other issues,
> > > and debugging patches to hopefully making finding the problem easier).
> > 
> > Have somebody else even tried to reproduce this issue on any other HW
> > board or any other qemu board?
> 
> The summary of Simon's thread where he tried to fix this problem is that
> only your platform still has a problem here.

This is not answer to the question.