[U-Boot] [PATCH 00/93] dm: Move towards completing CONFIG_BLK migration

Tom Rini
2018-11-20T13:42:36Z

On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 02:40:43PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 11/20/2018 02:37 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 01:42:15PM +0100, Soeren Moch wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 19.11.18 16:52, Simon Glass wrote:
> >>> All boards should now be migrated to use CONFIG_BLK. This series removes
> >>> those with build problems using this option.
> >>>
> >>> If maintainers want to keep these boards in they should send a patch in
> >>> the next week or two. Otherwise the board will be removed in the next
> >>> release, and will need to be added and re-reviewed later.
> >> Fabio, Stefano,
> >>
> >> it seems (almost?) all i.mx6 boards should be removed within two weeks.
> >> But would it not make more sense to convert the reference boards first
> >> (mx6sabresd
> >> in my case for tbs2910), and let hobbyist maintainers like me take this
> >> as example for
> >> their own modifications?
> >
> > So, I replied to the main thread earlier but no, we're not going to drop
> > everything in 2 weeks, especially since there's a lot of false positives
> > in this series.
> >
> >> Simon, Tom,
> >>
> >> is this really the usual u-boot working style to remove about hundred
> >> boards within
> >> two weeks without prior warning? As hobbyist board maintainer I try to
> >> follow
> >> new developments, and more than once I fixed up regressions introduced
> >> by others
> >> in general code.
> >> But I cannot follow all development details without any heads-up. And
> >> even the
> >> NXP folks seem to be surprised about this.
> >>
> >> All problems with this transition seem to be located around usbstorage
> >> and sata.
> >> This is for sure not really very board specific. Is there any migration
> >> guide, or
> >> examples how other SoC architectures did this conversion?
> >
> > I'll admit this hasn't been our best notification. But, the deadline
> > was discussed about a year ago (and then no, I didn't get a build-time
> > warning in). Then around v2018.05 I said it wasn't going to be a
> > removal type problem yet as we had a lot of boards to fixup still, and
> > repeated that at v2018.07. That did lead to a lot of things getting
> > addressed. But yes, we still have some large areas that after a few
> > years still have not been converted, and that puts me in a hard spot
> > too.
>
> Build time warning for a year would be good ?

A year for this? No. New deadlines? That's not too far off from what
we've done historically, so yes.

> Maybe we need some generic Makefile macro to set those up.

It would be nice, yes. I think the problem here is (or, was) the
complex set of options that didn't work.

--
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20181120/3fda52be/attachment.sig>