[U-Boot] BOOT_DELAY broken

[U-Boot] BOOT_DELAY broken

[Sergey Kubushyn]

OK, it is broken in last commit. Totally broken.

I can NOT get my custom board to stop at all. "CONFIG_BOOTDELAY=3" added
to my board defconfig doesn't change anything. Even changing default to
3 from 0 in common/Kconfig doesn't help.

Putting "CONFIG_BOOTDELAY 3" in my board config in /include/configs
makes gcc to output a whole lot of warning that it is redefined but it
_DOES_ work.

I do NOT have time chasing this -- I'm in firefighting mode now with 14
hours workdays because of this Tuesday deadline -- but guys, WTF!?

I could understand somebody submitting such a stupid patch affecting
_HUNDREDS_ of boards without thinking of consequences but why had it
been accepted and applied to uboot-master right away? There are other
things that are broken and won't compile but trivial one-line patches
fixing that breakage are silently ignored but such a enormous screwup
leaving holes all over is accepted right away without any checking...

Please do _NOT_ make such things any more. And if you do care please
take my vehement NACK to this entire thing. I suggest it would be better
to rollback that patch in its entirety -- there is too much work to fix
the damage and there is absolutely no reason for this change at all in
the first place.

Sorry for ranting but I simply could not stand it...

---
******************************************************************
*  KSI at home    KOI8 Net  < >  The impossible we do immediately.  *
*  Las Vegas   NV, USA   < >  Miracles require 24-hour notice.   *
******************************************************************

[U-Boot] BOOT_DELAY broken

[Ladislav Michl]

On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 02:19:50PM -0700, Sergey Kubushyn wrote:
> OK, it is broken in last commit. Totally broken.
> 
> I can NOT get my custom board to stop at all. "CONFIG_BOOTDELAY=3" added
> to my board defconfig doesn't change anything. Even changing default to
> 3 from 0 in common/Kconfig doesn't help.
> 
> Putting "CONFIG_BOOTDELAY 3" in my board config in /include/configs
> makes gcc to output a whole lot of warning that it is redefined but it
> _DOES_ work.
> 
> I do NOT have time chasing this -- I'm in firefighting mode now with 14
> hours workdays because of this Tuesday deadline -- but guys, WTF!?

Hmm, using moving target for any deadline doesn't seem like briliant idea,
even for Tuesday one...

> I could understand somebody submitting such a stupid patch affecting
> _HUNDREDS_ of boards without thinking of consequences but why had it
> been accepted and applied to uboot-master right away? There are other
> things that are broken and won't compile but trivial one-line patches
> fixing that breakage are silently ignored but such a enormous screwup
> leaving holes all over is accepted right away without any checking...
> 
> Please do _NOT_ make such things any more. And if you do care please
> take my vehement NACK to this entire thing. I suggest it would be better
> to rollback that patch in its entirety -- there is too much work to fix
> the damage and there is absolutely no reason for this change at all in
> the first place.

...anyway, you still have two days left, so either rollback or read
"[PATCH v2 0/5] Urgent fixes for misconverted CONFIG_BOOTDELAY" and
following (it also contains rants, but a bit more constructive)

> Sorry for ranting but I simply could not stand it...

best regards,
	ladis (in hope you are feeling better now)

[U-Boot] BOOT_DELAY broken

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Sergey,

In message <alpine.LFD.2.20.1606121324330.17506@maverick.koi8.net> you wrote:
> OK, it is broken in last commit. Totally broken.

So what?  Shit happens.  Calm down, it's only ones and zeroes.

> I do NOT have time chasing this -- I'm in firefighting mode now with 14
> hours workdays because of this Tuesday deadline -- but guys, WTF!?

Nobody asked you to fix that.  And that deadline thing is your
problem, not ours, right?  So please don't offload your frustration
and stress to others.

> I could understand somebody submitting such a stupid patch affecting
> _HUNDREDS_ of boards without thinking of consequences but why had it
> been accepted and applied to uboot-master right away? There are other
> things that are broken and won't compile but trivial one-line patches
> fixing that breakage are silently ignored but such a enormous screwup
> leaving holes all over is accepted right away without any checking...

Who says "without checking"?  As far as I know this patch has passed
buildman compile tests, plus runtime tests on all boards available to
the poster (which is more than the average developer has).

> Please do _NOT_ make such things any more. And if you do care please
> take my vehement NACK to this entire thing. I suggest it would be better
> to rollback that patch in its entirety -- there is too much work to fix
> the damage and there is absolutely no reason for this change at all in
> the first place.

Wrong approach.  If there are such obscure dependencies in U-Boot code
they SHOULD be cleaned up.  And yes, this can - and will -
occasionally cause temporary breakage, sometimes even in a large
scale.  But bugs are for fixing.  Bad code needs to be improved, not
to be conservated and never touched.  I strongly recommend to sort out
the remaining issues and fix the problems instead of ignoring them.
Papering over known issues has never been a clever idea.

> Sorry for ranting but I simply could not stand it...

I can understand your frustration, especially when working under
stress.  But eventually you may want to re-read your posting, think
about the tone which sounds extremely aggressive and insulting to me,
and then - maybe? - apologize to Heiko?

Thanks.

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,      Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
Monday is an awful way to spend one seventh of your life.