[U-Boot] Custodians, Maintainers and old platforms

[U-Boot] Custodians, Maintainers and old platforms

[Tom Rini]

Hey all,

(I had attempted to bcc this to all listed maintainer, but that upset
Google greatly.  I'll send this out manually instead later).

I'd like to put this out here for custodians and maintainers to
consider, especially in light of the device model work that's not just
coming but has already started being posted.

One of the keys to the success of U-Boot has been the number of
platforms that are supported.  But part of supporting platforms is
needing people to volunteer to maintain them long term and help with
testing changes and so forth.  So first of all, I've just tagged
v2012.10-rc1.  Please give this at least a basic test on whatever
platforms you're able to.

Second, with this, my next branch is now open and I'd like to start it
by asking that platforms that people wish to abandon be removed.  With
the device model, lots of code will need adjusting and while it's
mechanical in ways, it still needs to be run-time tested.  And it's
changes that someone must do.  I know others have suggested adding or
better publicizing our to-remove file.  But one of the advantages of git
is that it's easy to bring platforms back, should someone later wish to
bring it back.  But this also requires the removal to be done cleanly.

All of that said, I would like to stress that if you maintain a platform
and you wish to help with the testing and perhaps even the conversion
effort, no matter the age of the platform it would be welcome and
appreciated.

And finally, if everyone really wants to go another direction with old
platforms, I'm open to discussion of course.  I just want to miminize
work done on platforms that aren't active and we don't know if they will
come back.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20120921/17c114b5/attachment.pgp>

[U-Boot] Custodians, Maintainers and old platforms

[Albert ARIBAUD]

Hi Tom,

On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:28:18 -0700, Tom Rini <trini@ti.com> wrote:

> Hey all,
> 
> (I had attempted to bcc this to all listed maintainer, but that upset
> Google greatly.  I'll send this out manually instead later).
> 
> I'd like to put this out here for custodians and maintainers to
> consider, especially in light of the device model work that's not just
> coming but has already started being posted.
> 
> One of the keys to the success of U-Boot has been the number of
> platforms that are supported.  But part of supporting platforms is
> needing people to volunteer to maintain them long term and help with
> testing changes and so forth.  So first of all, I've just tagged
> v2012.10-rc1.  Please give this at least a basic test on whatever
> platforms you're able to.

Just started some minimal testing on edmini (Marvell orion5x).
Will be able to test on wireless_space (Marvell kirkwood).
Might be able to test on TrimSlice (NVidia Tegra2).
Sorry, no TI board handy. :)

> Second, with this, my next branch is now open and I'd like to start it
> by asking that platforms that people wish to abandon be removed.  With
> the device model, lots of code will need adjusting and while it's
> mechanical in ways, it still needs to be run-time tested.  And it's
> changes that someone must do.  I know others have suggested adding or
> better publicizing our to-remove file.  But one of the advantages of
> git is that it's easy to bring platforms back, should someone later
> wish to bring it back.  But this also requires the removal to be done
> cleanly.
> 
> All of that said, I would like to stress that if you maintain a
> platform and you wish to help with the testing and perhaps even the
> conversion effort, no matter the age of the platform it would be
> welcome and appreciated.

As far as edmini and wireless_space are concerned, I am willing to give
it a try. Where should I start?

> And finally, if everyone really wants to go another direction with old
> platforms, I'm open to discussion of course.  I just want to miminize
> work done on platforms that aren't active and we don't know if they
> will come back.

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.

[U-Boot] Custodians, Maintainers and old platforms

[Tom Rini]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 09/21/12 18:24, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:28:18 -0700, Tom Rini <trini@ti.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hey all,
>> 
>> (I had attempted to bcc this to all listed maintainer, but that
>> upset Google greatly.  I'll send this out manually instead
>> later).
>> 
>> I'd like to put this out here for custodians and maintainers to 
>> consider, especially in light of the device model work that's not
>> just coming but has already started being posted.
>> 
>> One of the keys to the success of U-Boot has been the number of 
>> platforms that are supported.  But part of supporting platforms
>> is needing people to volunteer to maintain them long term and
>> help with testing changes and so forth.  So first of all, I've
>> just tagged v2012.10-rc1.  Please give this at least a basic test
>> on whatever platforms you're able to.
> 
> Just started some minimal testing on edmini (Marvell orion5x). Will
> be able to test on wireless_space (Marvell kirkwood). Might be able
> to test on TrimSlice (NVidia Tegra2). Sorry, no TI board handy. :)
> 
>> Second, with this, my next branch is now open and I'd like to
>> start it by asking that platforms that people wish to abandon be
>> removed.  With the device model, lots of code will need adjusting
>> and while it's mechanical in ways, it still needs to be run-time
>> tested.  And it's changes that someone must do.  I know others
>> have suggested adding or better publicizing our to-remove file.
>> But one of the advantages of git is that it's easy to bring
>> platforms back, should someone later wish to bring it back.  But
>> this also requires the removal to be done cleanly.
>> 
>> All of that said, I would like to stress that if you maintain a 
>> platform and you wish to help with the testing and perhaps even
>> the conversion effort, no matter the age of the platform it would
>> be welcome and appreciated.
> 
> As far as edmini and wireless_space are concerned, I am willing to
> give it a try. Where should I start?

Start by looking over the documents in doc/driver-model/ and talking
with Marek things seem odd.

- -- 
Tom
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=9PeZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[U-Boot] Custodians, Maintainers and old platforms

[R, Sricharan]

Hi Tom,

[snip]
> (I had attempted to bcc this to all listed maintainer, but that upset
> Google greatly.  I'll send this out manually instead later).
>
> I'd like to put this out here for custodians and maintainers to
> consider, especially in light of the device model work that's not just
> coming but has already started being posted.
>
> One of the keys to the success of U-Boot has been the number of
> platforms that are supported.  But part of supporting platforms is
> needing people to volunteer to maintain them long term and help with
> testing changes and so forth.  So first of all, I've just tagged
> v2012.10-rc1.  Please give this at least a basic test on whatever
> platforms you're able to.
>
  Having been testing on OMAP5 and OMAP4 sdp. Will also test on others.
  Is there any branch where the basic DM driver support patches are pushed to
  start with ?

Thanks,
 Sricharan

[U-Boot] Custodians, Maintainers and old platforms

[Marek Vasut]

Dear R, Sricharan,

> Hi Tom,
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > (I had attempted to bcc this to all listed maintainer, but that upset
> > Google greatly.  I'll send this out manually instead later).
> > 
> > I'd like to put this out here for custodians and maintainers to
> > consider, especially in light of the device model work that's not just
> > coming but has already started being posted.
> > 
> > One of the keys to the success of U-Boot has been the number of
> > platforms that are supported.  But part of supporting platforms is
> > needing people to volunteer to maintain them long term and help with
> > testing changes and so forth.  So first of all, I've just tagged
> > v2012.10-rc1.  Please give this at least a basic test on whatever
> > platforms you're able to.
> 
>   Having been testing on OMAP5 and OMAP4 sdp. Will also test on others.
>   Is there any branch where the basic DM driver support patches are pushed
> to start with ?

u-boot-testing.git ... soon

> Thanks,
>  Sricharan
> _______________________________________________
> U-Boot mailing list
> U-Boot at lists.denx.de
> http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Best regards,
Marek Vasut

[U-Boot] Custodians, Maintainers and old platforms

[R, Sricharan]

Hi Marek Vasut,

>> > One of the keys to the success of U-Boot has been the number of
>> > platforms that are supported.  But part of supporting platforms is
>> > needing people to volunteer to maintain them long term and help with
>> > testing changes and so forth.  So first of all, I've just tagged
>> > v2012.10-rc1.  Please give this at least a basic test on whatever
>> > platforms you're able to.
>>
>>   Having been testing on OMAP5 and OMAP4 sdp. Will also test on others.
>>   Is there any branch where the basic DM driver support patches are pushed
>> to start with ?
>
> u-boot-testing.git ... soon
>
 Thanks, will watch out.

Thanks,
 Sricharan

[U-Boot] Custodians, Maintainers and old platforms

[Marek Vasut]

Dear R, Sricharan,

> Hi Marek Vasut,
> 
> >> > One of the keys to the success of U-Boot has been the number of
> >> > platforms that are supported.  But part of supporting platforms is
> >> > needing people to volunteer to maintain them long term and help with
> >> > testing changes and so forth.  So first of all, I've just tagged
> >> > v2012.10-rc1.  Please give this at least a basic test on whatever
> >> > platforms you're able to.
> >> > 
> >>   Having been testing on OMAP5 and OMAP4 sdp. Will also test on others.
> >>   Is there any branch where the basic DM driver support patches are
> >>   pushed
> >> 
> >> to start with ?
> > 
> > u-boot-testing.git ... soon
> 
>  Thanks, will watch out.

It's there ... branch dm-serial-1 , you can check dm-stringify and dm-lgarray

> Thanks,
>  Sricharan

Best regards,
Marek Vasut

[U-Boot] Custodians, Maintainers and old platforms

[R, Sricharan]

Hi Marek Vasut,

On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> wrote:
> Dear R, Sricharan,
>
>> Hi Marek Vasut,
>>
>> >> > One of the keys to the success of U-Boot has been the number of
>> >> > platforms that are supported.  But part of supporting platforms is
>> >> > needing people to volunteer to maintain them long term and help with
>> >> > testing changes and so forth.  So first of all, I've just tagged
>> >> > v2012.10-rc1.  Please give this at least a basic test on whatever
>> >> > platforms you're able to.
>> >> >
>> >>   Having been testing on OMAP5 and OMAP4 sdp. Will also test on others.
>> >>   Is there any branch where the basic DM driver support patches are
>> >>   pushed
>> >>
>> >> to start with ?
>> >
>> > u-boot-testing.git ... soon
>>
>>  Thanks, will watch out.
>
> It's there ... branch dm-serial-1 , you can check dm-stringify and dm-lgarray
>
     So should these 3 branches be merged to start?
    Thanks, will start with this for OMAP drivers.

Thanks,
 Sricharan

[U-Boot] Custodians, Maintainers and old platforms

[Marek Vasut]

Dear R, Sricharan,

> Hi Marek Vasut,
> 
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> wrote:
> > Dear R, Sricharan,
> > 
> >> Hi Marek Vasut,
> >> 
> >> >> > One of the keys to the success of U-Boot has been the number of
> >> >> > platforms that are supported.  But part of supporting platforms is
> >> >> > needing people to volunteer to maintain them long term and help
> >> >> > with testing changes and so forth.  So first of all, I've just
> >> >> > tagged v2012.10-rc1.  Please give this at least a basic test on
> >> >> > whatever platforms you're able to.
> >> >> > 
> >> >>   Having been testing on OMAP5 and OMAP4 sdp. Will also test on
> >> >>   others. Is there any branch where the basic DM driver support
> >> >>   patches are pushed
> >> >> 
> >> >> to start with ?
> >> > 
> >> > u-boot-testing.git ... soon
> >>  
> >>  Thanks, will watch out.
> > 
> > It's there ... branch dm-serial-1 , you can check dm-stringify and
> > dm-lgarray
> 
>      So should these 3 branches be merged to start?
>     Thanks, will start with this for OMAP drivers.

They're separate, feel free to play

> Thanks,
>  Sricharan

Best regards,
Marek Vasut

[U-Boot] Custodians, Maintainers and old platforms

[Stefan Kristiansson]

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 05:28:18PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> Hey all,
> 
> (I had attempted to bcc this to all listed maintainer, but that upset
> Google greatly.  I'll send this out manually instead later).
> 
> I'd like to put this out here for custodians and maintainers to
> consider, especially in light of the device model work that's not just
> coming but has already started being posted.
> 
> One of the keys to the success of U-Boot has been the number of
> platforms that are supported.  But part of supporting platforms is
> needing people to volunteer to maintain them long term and help with
> testing changes and so forth.  So first of all, I've just tagged
> v2012.10-rc1.  Please give this at least a basic test on whatever
> platforms you're able to.
> 
> Second, with this, my next branch is now open and I'd like to start it
> by asking that platforms that people wish to abandon be removed.  With
> the device model, lots of code will need adjusting and while it's
> mechanical in ways, it still needs to be run-time tested.  And it's
> changes that someone must do.  I know others have suggested adding or
> better publicizing our to-remove file.  But one of the advantages of git
> is that it's easy to bring platforms back, should someone later wish to
> bring it back.  But this also requires the removal to be done cleanly.
> 
> All of that said, I would like to stress that if you maintain a platform
> and you wish to help with the testing and perhaps even the conversion
> effort, no matter the age of the platform it would be welcome and
> appreciated.
> 
> And finally, if everyone really wants to go another direction with old
> platforms, I'm open to discussion of course.  I just want to miminize
> work done on platforms that aren't active and we don't know if they will
> come back.
> 

This made me realise that there are two old OpenRISC patches floating
around that hasn't been applied to mainline.

http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/142511/
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/142510/

Apart from that I'm not experiencing any problems on this arch.

It brings me to another question though,
would it be possible to get a custodian tree for OpenRISC?

Stefan

[U-Boot] Custodians, Maintainers and old platforms

[Marek Vasut]

Dear Stefan Kristiansson,

> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 05:28:18PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > Hey all,
> > 
> > (I had attempted to bcc this to all listed maintainer, but that upset
> > Google greatly.  I'll send this out manually instead later).
> > 
> > I'd like to put this out here for custodians and maintainers to
> > consider, especially in light of the device model work that's not just
> > coming but has already started being posted.
> > 
> > One of the keys to the success of U-Boot has been the number of
> > platforms that are supported.  But part of supporting platforms is
> > needing people to volunteer to maintain them long term and help with
> > testing changes and so forth.  So first of all, I've just tagged
> > v2012.10-rc1.  Please give this at least a basic test on whatever
> > platforms you're able to.
> > 
> > Second, with this, my next branch is now open and I'd like to start it
> > by asking that platforms that people wish to abandon be removed.  With
> > the device model, lots of code will need adjusting and while it's
> > mechanical in ways, it still needs to be run-time tested.  And it's
> > changes that someone must do.  I know others have suggested adding or
> > better publicizing our to-remove file.  But one of the advantages of git
> > is that it's easy to bring platforms back, should someone later wish to
> > bring it back.  But this also requires the removal to be done cleanly.
> > 
> > All of that said, I would like to stress that if you maintain a platform
> > and you wish to help with the testing and perhaps even the conversion
> > effort, no matter the age of the platform it would be welcome and
> > appreciated.
> > 
> > And finally, if everyone really wants to go another direction with old
> > platforms, I'm open to discussion of course.  I just want to miminize
> > work done on platforms that aren't active and we don't know if they will
> > come back.
> 
> This made me realise that there are two old OpenRISC patches floating
> around that hasn't been applied to mainline.
> 
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/142511/
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/142510/
> 
> Apart from that I'm not experiencing any problems on this arch.

Tom, I think we should apply them please.

> It brings me to another question though,
> would it be possible to get a custodian tree for OpenRISC?

CCing Detlev.

> Stefan

Best regards,
Marek Vasut

[U-Boot] Custodians, Maintainers and old platforms

[Detlev Zundel]

Hi Marek,

[...]

>> It brings me to another question though,
>> would it be possible to get a custodian tree for OpenRISC?
>
> CCing Detlev.

Sorry for being late here - do we still need/want the OpenRISC tree?
Actually I anticipated such a tree  nearly five years ago[1] *lol*.

Cheers
  Detlev

[1] http://www.denx.de/wiki/view/U-Boot/CustodianGitTrees?rev=1.1

-- 
I'm sorry that I long ago coined the term "objects" for this topic
because it gets many people to focus on the lesser idea.
                      -- Alan Kay on "Object" Oriented Programming
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,      MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich,  Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-40 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: dzu at denx.de

[U-Boot] Custodians, Maintainers and old platforms

[Tom Rini]

On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 05:50:42AM +0300, Stefan Kristiansson wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 05:28:18PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > Hey all,
> > 
> > (I had attempted to bcc this to all listed maintainer, but that upset
> > Google greatly.  I'll send this out manually instead later).
> > 
> > I'd like to put this out here for custodians and maintainers to
> > consider, especially in light of the device model work that's not just
> > coming but has already started being posted.
> > 
> > One of the keys to the success of U-Boot has been the number of
> > platforms that are supported.  But part of supporting platforms is
> > needing people to volunteer to maintain them long term and help with
> > testing changes and so forth.  So first of all, I've just tagged
> > v2012.10-rc1.  Please give this at least a basic test on whatever
> > platforms you're able to.
> > 
> > Second, with this, my next branch is now open and I'd like to start it
> > by asking that platforms that people wish to abandon be removed.  With
> > the device model, lots of code will need adjusting and while it's
> > mechanical in ways, it still needs to be run-time tested.  And it's
> > changes that someone must do.  I know others have suggested adding or
> > better publicizing our to-remove file.  But one of the advantages of git
> > is that it's easy to bring platforms back, should someone later wish to
> > bring it back.  But this also requires the removal to be done cleanly.
> > 
> > All of that said, I would like to stress that if you maintain a platform
> > and you wish to help with the testing and perhaps even the conversion
> > effort, no matter the age of the platform it would be welcome and
> > appreciated.
> > 
> > And finally, if everyone really wants to go another direction with old
> > platforms, I'm open to discussion of course.  I just want to miminize
> > work done on platforms that aren't active and we don't know if they will
> > come back.
> > 
> 
> This made me realise that there are two old OpenRISC patches floating
> around that hasn't been applied to mainline.
> 
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/142511/
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/142510/

Queued this up in patchwork, thanks.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20121001/b71464b7/attachment.pgp>