[U-Boot] Potential issue with recent OMAP PRCM struct unification

[Tom Rini <trini@ti.com>]

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

On 04/02/2013 11:55 AM, Sricharan R wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 April 2013 08:47 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
>> 
>> On 04/02/2013 11:06 AM, Sricharan R wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 02 April 2013 05:59 PM, Michael Cashwell wrote:
>>>> On Apr 2, 2013, at 5:32 AM, Sricharan R <r.sricharan@ti.com>
>>>>  wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>>> Also why are you enabling the non-essential clocks ?
>>>> 
>>>> Because I must be able to boot Linux kernels as far back as 
>>>> 3.0.8 which predates this paradigm shift.
>>>> 
>>>>> Now enabling non-essential clocks is deprecated and they
>>>>> are **not** by enabled by default.
>>>> 
>>>> As a point of clarification, are you asserting that 
>>>> CONFIG_SYS_CLOCKS_ENABLE_ALL and CONFIG_SYS_ENABLE_PADS_ALL
>>>> have been officially deprecated (e.g.: is planned for removal
>>>> from u-boot)?
>>>> 
>>>> There is no mention of this anywhere within the source tree,
>>>>  including in any documentation or README and, IMO, it would
>>>> be very premature given that at least 4 Linux kernel lines
>>>> needing these inits are still within their longterm support
>>>> window.
>>>> 
>>>> But clearly until such removal happens dropping any that were
>>>>  previously handled is a regression.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for the assistance!
>>>> 
>>> Yes, thats why we still have kept it for testing. But now,
>>> there are already patches to fix this in the kernel being
>>> posted, and probably all of them should be fixed shortly. Once
>>> that is done, all of this can be removed.
>> 
>> So, here's my 2 cents on this.  We can't up and drop these
>> options from U-Boot until there's a complete / viable kernel
>> tthhat doesn't need them.  I'm _not_ saying we need to test every
>> patchset vs an old kernel or anything, but we shouldn't
>> intentionally make life harder on folks, until we can just pull
>> the option all together (and say use a new kernel, or an older
>> u-boot).
>> 
> Hmm, Agree this should not be broken unintentionally. But because
> we purposefully deprecated this, kernel is now getting fixed.
> Fixing any thing towards this deprecated one, will again introduce 
> the luxury of not addressing in kernel, which is not good. If we
> propose of removing this in U-BOOT after every thing is fixed in
> kernel, we still will have of need of supporting for older
> kernels..

Yes, I'm assuming the kernel folks to continue with adding clocks they
need in the right places now that the main event has happened and we
aren't enabling more things until / unless we need them.  And since I
think that's going at reasonable speed, I don't think we need to draw
a dated line in the sand, just one that says we shall remove the
option, once a reasonable (read: most IO works) kernel tree is
available that doesn't need this, we can remove it.  Maybe we can set
a hope to remove date?  How about v2013.07?

- -- 
Tom
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=qE1a
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----