[ANN] U-Boot v2025.04-rc4 released
Tom Rini
trini at konsulko.com
Tue Mar 11 21:31:17 CET 2025
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 05:32:15PM -0600, Tom Rini wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> So it's release day and I have tagged and pushed things out. This will
> be merged to -next shortly.
>
> Continuing on with what I started after the -rc1 release, we had a call
> today and the link was
> https://calendar.google.com/calendar/event?action=TEMPLATE&tmeid=N280N2tlcXE3aDVtbjlicnNkcm82YnA1bDAgODliZTdiODEzMTM2YmVjMDZhODNkZTRkYTU5NzQ1ZjBhYmQxMWMxYjgzNjA2MWFlMDZjMWM3ZGJjZDE4ZGY0MUBn&tmsrc=89be7b813136bec06a83de4da59745f0abd11c1b836061ae06c1c7dbcd18df41%40group.calendar.google.com
> and once again this is the same time as the previous meeting. The
> meeting details itself are:
> https://meet.google.com/btj-wgcg-euw
> March 11th, 2025. 9am (GMT -06:00)
>
> To join by phone:
> https://meet.google.com/tel/btj-wgcg-euw?pin=1307528552322&hs=1
Again, sorry for the confusion about when the meeting was. It was today
the 11th, and here are my notes. All errors are unintentionally my own.
As a general note, to try and reduce confusion it was suggested and I
will moving forward note that the calendar on https://www.u-boot.org/
has the meeting (and will show in local timezone) and just provide the
direct link and time.
- I noted that -rc4 was yesterday and we have one more rc before the
April release. If anyone knows about regression fixes that are still
outstanding, please speak up. On that note, Ilias noted that an issue
recently was seen with small memory devices and EFI booting. It's
likely a corner case that has always existed, and more debugging is
required. If resolved in time and a reasonable fix, it should be
included in the release.
- I moved on to stating that I had been talking with the Software
Freedom Conservancy (SFC) about the U-Boot project moving to be under
their umbrella for various reasons, and introduced Karen Sandler and
Bradley Kuhn, from SFC that had joined the call and asked them to
introduce themselves and SFC.
- After that, we had a few questions / answers and I'm going to
briefly summarize them here. Heinrich asked a few things about where
SFC is located and how that might impact the project overall. Karen
and Bradley confirmed that SFC is a US organization, but also that
where servers exist physically matters more than where the
organization is, with respect to export control and similar.
Comparing SFC to Linux Foundation (LF), as a matter of US law, SFC
is a "501c3" charity which needs to act in the public interest
whereas LF is a 501c6 trade organization. This in turn means that
SFC focuses on projects run by communities rather than big
corporations. SFC does things like try and help projects to organize
themselves, and when they have money figure out how to spend that
money to better the project as a whole. Projects are not required to
bring in more money than their overhead to the project requires for
example. Andre Przywara asked if there would be any day to day
changes to the project, for example how FSF until somewhat recently
required copyright assignment. Bradley noted that there would not be
and that for copyright specifically, they prefer the model that
U-Boot already has. I mentioned that getting back to the differences
between SFC and LF for example, the statement LF put out somewhat
recently about US sanctions and open source projects differs from
the opinion SFC has there and that I found the SFC opinion to be
much more developer friendly. Bradley and Karen noted that SFC has a
further post on this topic being worked on currently.
- I asked about new topics and Heinrich brought up the lengthy email
chain between myself and Simon about speed of project development. As
Simon wasn't on the call I didn't want to misrepresent him and his
views and so tried to keep this somewhat brief. In sum, he and I have
fundamental disagreements about the speed at which U-Boot should make
changes. I believe we need to move slowly and deliberately and it's OK
if migrations take quite a long time to complete because most people
aren't testing every release, let alone every -rc. Heinrich asked if
it would be helpful to document what migrations need to be done and
what their deadlines are. I noted we have been doing some of these but
some of the problems are that deadlines are years out, and then
consequences another year out still, and I believe Simon believes
this is too long. Heinrich brought up the example of bootstandard
migration and I noted that yes, as the sunxi example shows I believe
we have bigger problems there to resolve before we could set some
deadline.
- We had a small tangent about boot standard and upstream device trees
and I noted that upstream schema is interested in taking what we
have to offer, it's just a matter of doing it. The bootph-
properties are a good example of how this has been solved in the
past and can be solved moving forward.
- Getting back to development speed, Andre noted this is side project
for him and he doesn't have cycles for dealing with everything
quickly enough sometimes. Taking a more "relaxed stand" makes sense
for him. He does see this as something that Simon is very interested
and invested in.
- Heinrich noted it would be good for Simon to be on these calls and
get feedback from the community on prioritizing tasks and similar. I
agreed.
- Ilias noted that with respect to how often / how many big changes
come in per release, what a "big change" means needs to be defined.
For example, the MMU changes he's working on, he did examine using
the CPU uclass as Simon suggested, but then saw it's utilized on
very few boards and so not useful for this feature.
- I summarize the LED uclass as another example where he and I
disagree.
- Ilias noted migrations should be done by the introducer as much as
is possible. I noted that Simon did that historically but was hoping
more people would pick up and do them now. I noted that it's indeed
hard and often thankless work to do those migrations blindly.
- Ilias noted he's fine taking stuff that's in progress so long as it
can all be logically and reasonably explained.
- As Simon wasn't on the call, I wound this topic down at this point.
- Ilias asked how the MMU feature he's been working on should be enabled
once it's merged as it finds code bugs, but also those bugs lead to
crashes. After talking with Andre a bit, he's going to try out a few
different allwinner SoCs with a number of peripherals to see what
falls out. I noted that it looks like the generic problems have been
found and patches posted, so it's going to be a per-SoC thing next and
asked if TI can also try it out on K3 platforms, once merged.
- Heinrich asked if Allwinner D1 support will happen, and Andre said a
number of people have asked but not a lot of developers. The ARM
version of the chip is upstreamed, it's just the RISC-V side missing.
Someone needs to step up and help on that side. Andre just lacks time.
The next question is of how much long term interest there will be here
as it could really end up as just a one time one-off.
- At this point I said we should wrap up the call and Karen noted that
if there's more questions about SFC people should feel free to reach
out to them. I noted that I still owe making a dedicated email thread
about this and would soon.
- Heinrich asked if we would have a meeting two weeks after the release,
during the merge window or not. I said I didn't know and Andre agreed
it would be a good idea. So I will figure out making a one-off meeting
for that.
--
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/20250311/f88979f0/attachment.sig>
More information about the U-Boot
mailing list