[U-Boot-Users] Pull request u-boot-blackfin.git

[Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>]

On Saturday 23 February 2008, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > ive had no involvement in the past development.  if you want to say it
> > sucked or complain about how it was done, i dont really care.  only
> > moving forward from the current situation matters to me.
>
> I'm not saying it sucks. You're the one who said it's broken ;-)

it is broken.  broken as in it wont compile let alone link for any Blackfin 
code.

> > as for getting it to work, i dont see the value in getting an old dead
> > version of the Blackfin tree working when i have a clean rewritten tree
> > to merge.  if i get the old one to boot, so what ?  the resulting code
> > base isnt supported ... if someone says "i tried to do XYZ with the
> > Blackfin code and it didnt work", i'm going to look at it and say "it
> > works with this other code base, so i dont care.  you can wait until i
> > finish merging this tree."
>
> That's why we do incremental improvements so that you can separate the
> fixes from the other stuff and submit them even if there isn't a merge
> window open.

it's already been done

> > > There are way too many useless commands in the tree as it is, we don't
> > > want even more unreviewed crap sneaking in through the back door.
> >
> > if you look at all the new commands you'll see that (1) they're optional
> > and (2) they expose Blackfin specific functionality.  these affect no
> > other arches.
>
> First, if they're blackfin-specific, what are they doing under common/?

my understanding was that all commands go in common/.  there's plenty of 
arch-specific commands in there already.

> Second, the SPI driver that broke the tree for almost four weeks was
> optional and ppc-specific. Have you run tests on all architectures so
> that you can be 100% sure that you're not breaking anything this late
> in the release cycle?

i make my things conditionally compiled (see the Makefile).  so yes, i'm 100% 
sure i'm not breaking anyone.  if you add the CONFIG_xxx to your board 
config, well that's your fault ;).

> Your tree touches common code

Blackfin-specific pieces of common code ... there's a difference

> you're asking for it to be merged 
> without any review at all. I don't think that's a good idea.

i'm asking for the Blackfin pieces to be merged regardless of "merge window".  
i'm making no requests wrt review.  Wolfgang wants it reviewed first -- i'm 
fine with that.  complaining that Blackfin changes are going in that 
arent "pure fixes" i dont care about (right now).
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 827 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20080223/e8a8e876/attachment.pgp