* [U-Boot] BOOT_DELAY broken
2016-06-12 21:19 [U-Boot] BOOT_DELAY broken Sergey Kubushyn
@ 2016-06-12 22:07 ` Ladislav Michl
2016-06-13 6:19 ` Wolfgang Denk
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Ladislav Michl @ 2016-06-12 22:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
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)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] BOOT_DELAY broken
2016-06-12 21:19 [U-Boot] BOOT_DELAY broken Sergey Kubushyn
2016-06-12 22:07 ` Ladislav Michl
@ 2016-06-13 6:19 ` Wolfgang Denk
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Wolfgang Denk @ 2016-06-13 6:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread