[U-Boot] [PATCH 0/2] spl: MMC U-Boot image load from raw partition

[Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.boot@aribaud.net>]

Hello Paul,

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 23:16:09 +0100, Paul Kocialkowski
<contact@paulk.fr> wrote:
> Le jeudi 13 novembre 2014 ? 12:16 +0100, Albert ARIBAUD a ?crit :
> > Hello Tom,
> > 
> > On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 13:46:09 -0500, Tom Rini <trini@ti.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 11:19:23PM +0100, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> > > > Hello Paul,
> > > > 
> > > > On Sat,  8 Nov 2014 23:14:54 +0100, Paul Kocialkowski
> > > > <contact@paulk.fr> wrote:
> > > > > This is a first attempt at adding support for U-Boot image load from raw
> > > > > partitions. It does not support OS boot as I cannot test it on my current
> > > > > setup.
> > > > > 
> > > > > This is going to be useful for the Optimus Black port (please do not consider
> > > > > this as dead code because no board is using it right now, there will be one
> > > > > soon)!
> > > > 
> > > > Well... Why don't you just post these two patches a little later, as
> > > > part of the upcoming series which will add support for the Optimus
> > > > Black?
> > > 
> > > So to me the "dead code" thing is starting to get a lot more ambiguous
> > > since with Kconfig we'll need need every single possible choice enabled
> > > in some defconfig, just some way to turn it on, on a possibly relevant
> > > board.  In this case, any OMAP3+ board would be a fine place to try this
> > > out, IFF it's done as a Kconfig choice.
> > 
> > Not sure I'm understanding you right, but it seems to me we're in sync:
> > as long as the code is enabled somewhere on some target, it is not dead
> > code. I'm precisely asking that the code here be submitted along with
> > the target that uses it. Or did I miss something?
> 
> Well I think it makes sense to not call this dead code as long as it
> *can be* enabled and used on another supported board (for that matter,
> any OMAP3+ board will indeed do).

If no board is calling this code right now, that is because none needs
it. If none needs it, then it has no reason to be added. The day some
board needs this code, the patch to add this code can be submitted
along with the patch that calls this code.

> This is very different from e.g. the regulator code that I submitted,
> which is only relevant for devices with that particular piece of
> hardware (so far, none supported by U-Boot). So it makes sense to submit
> that regulator patch only along with support for a board that uses it.

I don't see the difference.

> Paul Kocialkowski, Replicant developer
> 
> Replicant is a fully free Android distribution
> 
> Website: http://www.replicant.us/
> Blog: http://blog.replicant.us/
> Wiki/tracker/forums: http://redmine.replicant.us/

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.