Rate of innovation in the project (Was: Re: Rate of change in the project)

[Tom Rini]

On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 08:46:31AM -0600, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 09:10:47AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
[snip]
> > Again, back to this thread, if you want me to migrate things, consider
> > applying the sunxi patches as I have described above. I will then look
> > at the next target for bootstd. But while you hold this up, I cannot
> > move forward with more bootstd migration. It doesn't seem that much to
> > ask.
> 
> I will take another look at what's still relevant. But I believe it's
> still blocked on the fact that it changes behavior and breaks users.

In details:

https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20241113150938.1534931-2-sjg@chromium.org/

Now that the underlying BLK problem is resolved, this can just be
dropped I believe. Removing the BLK dependency from BOOTSTD can happen
when you're supporting a flow that lacks a BLK device entirely. This
would be another reminder as to why putting unrelated changes in a
series is a problem.

https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20241113150938.1534931-3-sjg@chromium.org/

This is fine.

https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20241113150938.1534931-4-sjg@chromium.org/

This is not fine. This is also not a sunxi problem. It means that we
should drop bootmgr from rockchip, where the conversion has already
taken place, and would need to drop it from future conversion too.
Neither of which are desirable changes. This patch in particular is
where we have the note:

"Yes, the introduction of boot standard changed the boot order and
specifically deprioritizing scripts is unexpected."

Which should have had more attention than it did.

This is the thread that to me spelled out in details where the
conversions are now blocked. We changed behavior and that in turn breaks
users that have come to rely on ordering.

https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20241113150938.1534931-5-sjg@chromium.org/

Is an alternative to the above which then turned in to a discussion that
I would very briefly summarize as "no discussions were had between
stakeholders before integrating efi bootmgr with bootstd".

https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20241113150938.1534931-6-sjg@chromium.org/

This is fine, but only relevant once migration happens.

https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20241113150938.1534931-7-sjg@chromium.org/

If Andre is fine with this, this is fine.

https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20241113150938.1534931-8-sjg@chromium.org/

This is a generic bugfix. I will take this to next today.

https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20241113150938.1534931-9-sjg@chromium.org/

If Andre is fine with this, this is fine.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 659 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20250310/fe37d975/attachment.sig>