> Am 07.05.2023 um 19:54 schrieb Klemens Nanni <k...@openbsd.org>:
>
> On Sun, May 07, 2023 at 06:30:55PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
>> As I've said before, the u-boot developers have poor quality control
>> and this will almost certainly break some targets.
>>
>> I think the way forward is to have a u-boot port per SoC such that we
>> can leave older SoCs using an older U-Boot version that we know to be
>> good while newer SoCs can switch to a newer version after testing a
>> few boards.
>
> That should always work. Not sure if pulling them out of the main u-boot
> port one by one or all at once is better, though.
>
> For the 2207.* update it seemed as if the Pinebook Pro's breakage alone kept
> all others boards on outdated versions and we practically have no other way
> of disentangling this mess, afaict.
>
> We already have sysutils/u-boot-asahi.
>
> Would mean some ports shuffling and installing more package where boot media
> is built, but that doesn't seem like too much work.
Why don‘t we change the armv7 miniroots to not provide any U-Boot, like we
already do on arm64, and then we can remove the whole U-Boot port and not have
to maintain it?
