From: Sricharan R <r.sricharan@ti.com>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] Potential issue with recent OMAP PRCM struct unification
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 22:59:18 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <515B156E.1060607@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <515B0A7C.7080801@ti.com>
On Tuesday 02 April 2013 10:12 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> -----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?
>
Yes, sounds good. Hopefully kernel fixed by then
Regards,
Sricharan
prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-04-02 17:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-04-01 15:42 [U-Boot] Potential issue with recent OMAP PRCM struct unification Michael Cashwell
2013-04-02 9:32 ` Sricharan R
2013-04-02 12:29 ` Michael Cashwell
2013-04-02 15:06 ` Sricharan R
2013-04-02 15:17 ` Tom Rini
2013-04-02 15:55 ` Sricharan R
2013-04-02 16:42 ` Tom Rini
2013-04-02 17:29 ` Sricharan R [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=515B156E.1060607@ti.com \
--to=r.sricharan@ti.com \
--cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox