[U-Boot] [PATCH v2 2/5] fastboot: sparse: resync common/image-sparse.c (part 1)

[Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>]

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 09:36:23PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 10:29:39AM -0700, Steve Rae wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 1:18 AM, Maxime Ripard
> > <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 11:19:36AM -0700, Steve Rae wrote:
> > > > This file originally came from upstream code.
> > > >
> > > > While retaining the storage abstraction feature, this is the first
> > > > set of the changes required to resync with the
> > > >   cmd_flash_mmc_sparse_img()
> > > > in the file
> > > >   aboot.c
> > > > from
> > > >   https://us.codeaurora.org/cgit/quic/la/kernel/lk/plain/app/aboot/aboot.c?h=LE.BR.1.2.1
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Steve Rae <srae@broadcom.com>
> > >
> > > Again, please split that in several patches to have one patch
> > > per-change you're doing.
> > >
> > > This is just impossible to review.
> > 
> > And I think you just reinforced the point:
> >    this code was so far away from the original upstream code that it
> > is not even recognizable anymore....
> 
> I think the only point that was made is that a different bootloader
> has a different implementation of the same protocol, just like for any
> other protocol.
> 
> An implementation relying on a 120 lines switch statement, and a 250
> lines functions, that hardcodes the backing storage device.
> 
> I'm not sure this is such a good inspiration.

True.  But do we want to have a compatible implementation, or match the
canonical implementation?  Especially since there's many existing 3rd
party tools that will test against the upstream version of things.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20160622/425c3afc/attachment.sig>