> On 8 May 2023, at 22:44, Mark Kettenis <mark.kette...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>> From: Patrick Wildt <patr...@blueri.se>
>> Date: Mon, 8 May 2023 14:14:27 +0200
>>
>>> 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 all others boards on outdated versions and we practically have no other way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,
>
> Not against doing this, but by "old" I don't necessarily mean just
> armv7.
>
>> and then we can remove the whole U-Boot port and not have to
>> maintain it?
>
> Unfortunately there isn't a good source for pre-built U-Boot binaries,
> let alone a source of pre-built U-Boot binaries that didn't somehow
> fuck up EFI support.
>
> So I think the u-boot port *is* useful even if we don't use it to
> create bootable installer images. But only as long as we don't ship a
> package with broken images. It is clear that we don't have the
> manpower and infrastructure to test a large enough fraction of the
> u-boot binaries that our current u-boot package produces. Hence my
> suggestion to split the package (and mostly forget about the older
> ones where new versions of U-Boot don't really add any new
> functionality).
I agree completely with Mark here.
